FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 18 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELENA MARGARITIS, No. 12-15375
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00221-NVW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
U.S. BANK, N.A.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 12, 2014**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Elena Margaritis appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her diversity action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(order), and for an abuse of discretion the denial of leave to amend a complaint,
Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011).
We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Johnson v. Riverside
Healthcare Sys ., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Margaritis’s claim for “false and
fraudulent recordations” because Margaritis did not allege facts showing that
defendant had knowingly recorded a false claim on her property. See Cervantes,
656 F.3d at 1038-44 (explaining the recording system and rejecting challenges to
its validity).
The district court properly dismissed Margaritis’s claim for violations of
Arizona’s Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) because Arizona law does “not
require compliance with the UCC before a trustee commences a non-judicial
foreclosure.” Hogan v. Wash. Mut. Bank, N.A., 277 P.3d 781, 783 (Ariz. 2012) (en
banc).
Margaritis’s remaining claims regarding irregularities in the trustee’s sale,
unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief were properly dismissed because
Margaritis failed to obtain injunctive relief prior to the trustee’s sale of the
property. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-811(C) (trustor’s defenses and objections to a
trustee’s sale are waived if they are not raised in an action resulting in injunctive
2 12-15375
relief before the sale); BT Capital, LLC v. TD Serv. Co. of Ariz., 275 P.3d 598, 600
(Ariz. 2012) (en banc) (explaining that once a trustee’s sale is completed, “a person
subject to § 33-811(C) cannot later challenge the sale based on pre-sale defenses or
objections”). Moreover, Margaritis’s “show the note” argument is unpersuasive.
See Hogan, 277 P.3d at 782 (“Arizona’s non-judicial foreclosure statutes do not
require the beneficiary to prove its authority or ‘show the note’ before the trustee
may commence a non-judicial foreclosure.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to file an
amended complaint. See Cervantes, 656 F.3d at 1041 (“Although leave to amend
should be given freely, a district court may dismiss without leave where a
plaintiff’s proposed amendments would fail to cure the pleading deficiencies and
amendment would be futile.”).
AFFIRMED.
3 12-15375