NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 26 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD P. DAGRES, No. 14-56799
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01339-CAS-CW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
COUNTRYWIDE BANK, N.A., succeeded
by merger with BAC Home Loan Servicing,
LP; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Richard P. Dagres appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his federal and state law claims arising from foreclosure proceedings.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s
*
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).
dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), and we may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v.
Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Dagres’ securitization related state law
claims because California law does not permit Dagres to bring a preemptive suit to
challenge defendants’ authority to foreclosure. See Gomes v. Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc., 192 Cal. Rptr. 3d 819, 823-24 (Ct. App. 2011). Each of Dagres’
arguments for why defendants lack authority to foreclose have been rejected by the
California courts. See, e.g., Saterbak v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 199 Cal.
Rptr. 3d 790, 795-96 (Ct. App. 2016) (borrowers lack standing to challenge
assignments of loans into a securitized trust); Siliga v. Mortg. Elect. Registration
Syst., Inc., 161 Cal. Rptr. 3d 500, 506 (Ct. App. 2013) (“California courts have
held that a trustor who agreed under the terms of the deed of trust that [electronic
database provider Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.], as the lender’s
nominee, has the authority to exercise all of the rights and interests of the
lender . . . is precluded from maintaining a cause of action based on the allegation
that MERS has no authority to exercise those rights.”), abrogated in part by
Yvanova v. New Century Mortg. Corp., 365 P.3d 845 (Cal. 2016).
We do not consider arguments not specifically and distinctly raised and
2 14-56799
argued in the opening brief, or raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v.
Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
3 14-56799