ALLANA BARONI V. CIT BANK, No. 16-56618 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 08 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: ALLANA BARONI, No. 16-56618 Debtor, ______________________________ D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00829-SVW ALLANA BARONI, MEMORANDUM* Appellant, v. CIT BANK N.A., FKA OneWest Bank FSB, FKA OneWest Bank NA, Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 6, 2018** San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and D.W. NELSON and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Allana Baroni (“Baroni”) appeals the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s summary judgment rulings in favor of CIT Bank, N.A. (formerly known as “OneWest Bank N.A.”) (“OneWest”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 1. Baroni’s note secured by a deed of trust is a “negotiable instrument” under Cal. Com. Code § 3104(a). Yvanova v. New Century Mortg. Corp., 62 Cal. 4th 919, 927 (2016) (citing Creative Ventures, LLC v. Jim Ward & Assocs., 195 Cal. App. 4th 1430, 1445–46 (2011) (applying Commercial Code to promissory note)). That the principal on her note may increase if she fails to pay interest does not render the note non-negotiable. Regardless of any “interest” or additional “charges,” Baroni agreed to pay at the very least $1.61 million—a “fixed amount of money” pursuant § 3104(a). 2. The undisputed evidence establishes OneWest possesses Baroni’s promissory note indorsed in blank. As the “holder of the instrument,” OneWest may “enforce” it in this bankruptcy action. §§ 1201(b)(21)(A), 3301 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also In re Veal, 450 B.R. 897, 910–11, 917 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2011) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); In re Smith, 509 B.R. 260, 266–67 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2014) (citations omitted). 2 3. The undisputed evidence further establishes OneWest kept Baroni’s note and the allonges executed pursuant to it in the same folder. As the allonges were “sufficiently affixed” to the note, there is no triable issue of material fact as to whether OneWest may enforce it. Veal, 450 B.R. at 911 n.24 (citations omitted); see also § 3204(a). 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.