DAVID ALEXANDER V. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, No. 13-55069 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID ALEXANDER, an individual, No. 13-55069 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-08901-R-JCG v. MEMORANDUM* THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A., FKA The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A., as successor-in-interest to JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, as Trustee, for Pooling and Servicing Agreement for Residential Asset Mortgage Products, Inc., Mortgage-Backed PassThrough Certificates Series 2003-SL1 Erroneously Sued As The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., fka The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A.; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. 1 Submitted February 10, 2015** Pasadena, California Before: KOZINSKI, CHRISTEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. David Alexander appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his claims for quiet title and slander of title pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.1 1. The appellees’ motion to dismiss this appeal as moot is denied. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 761.020. 2. Alexander acknowledges a valid deed of trust was recorded against the property when he purchased it in 2011. That the subsequent assignment lacked language explicitly transferring an interest in the underlying note does not render the deed of trust invalid. See Domarad v. Fisher & Burke, Inc., 76 Cal. Rptr. 529, 536 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969) (“[A] deed of trust is inseparable from the debt, . . . and an attempt to assign the deed of trust without a transfer of the debt is without effect.”); Shimpones v. Stickney, 28 P.2d 673, 678 (Cal. 1934) (“The plaintiff in a quiet title suit is not helped by the weakness of his adversary’s title, but must stand ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 1 The parties are familiar with the facts, so we do not recount them here. 2 upon the strength of his or her own. The fatal weakness in plaintiff’s position is that she . . . refused to pay [her debt].”). 3. Because Alexander failed to raise arguments pertaining to the slander of title claim in his opening brief, his challenge to the district court’s dismissal of this claim is deemed waived. See United States v. Kama, 394 F.3d 1236, 1238 (9th Cir. 2005). AFFIRMED. 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.