AUDIE REYNOLDS V. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, No. 17-16696 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 16 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUDIE REYNOLDS, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-16696 D.C. No. 3:17-cv-08123-JJT v. MEMORANDUM* OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC and UNKNOWN PARTIES, named as: Does (110), Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona John Joseph Tuchi, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Audie Reynolds appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of * 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). Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Kwan v. SanMedica Int’l, 854 F.3d 1088, 1093 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Reynolds’s action because Reynolds failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Western Progressive – Arizona, Inc. was not a proper trustee authorized to initiate the non-judicial foreclosure process under Arizona state law. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 33-803(A)(1) (trustee of a deed of trust may be a corporation doing business under the laws of the state as an escrow agent), 33-803(A)(6) (trustee of a deed of trust may be a corporation wholly-owned by any corporation referenced in § 33-803(A)(1)). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile). AFFIRMED. 2 17-16696

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.