NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTOPHER A. BLAKE; LINDA B. No. 14-35061
BLAKE,
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-02186-MJP
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
U.S. BANK NA, as Trustee for the
Stanwich Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2012-
3; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Marsha J. Pechman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Christopher A. Blake and Linda B. Blake appeal pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in their diversity action arising from foreclosure
*
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).
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,
Kaplan v. City of N. Las Vegas, 323 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2003), and we
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because the Blakes
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Carrington Mortgage
Services, LLC was the holder of their promissory note and therefore entitled to
initiate nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings. See Brown v. Wash. State Dep’t of
Commerce, 359 P.3d 771, 778-80, 787 (Wash. 2015) (explaining that Washington
law permits separation of note ownership from enforcement and holding that a loan
servicer who held an endorsed note was the beneficiary with legal authority to
enforce the obligation and foreclose); see also Wash. Rev. Code § 61.24.030 (7)(a)
(a “declaration by the beneficiary made under the penalty of perjury stating that the
beneficiary is the actual holder of the promissory note” is “sufficient proof that the
beneficiary is the owner of any promissory note . . . secured by the deed of trust”).
Moreover, the Blakes lack standing to challenge the validity of the assignment of
their promissory note into a securitized trust. See Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v.
Slotke, 367 P.3d 600, 606 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Blakes’ motions
2 14-35061
to compel discovery because their first motion failed to comply with procedural
rules and the district court reasonably directed the parties to file a joint discovery
plan in response to their second motion. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751
(9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth standard of review and describing court’s broad
discretion to permit or deny discovery).
AFFIRMED.
3 14-35061