NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEPHEN YAGMAN, No. 16-55015
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-05512-FMO-JC
v. MEMORANDUM
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC;
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE HOLDINGS,
INC.; NATIONSTAR HOLDINGS;
NATIONSTAR, LLC; NATIONSTAR
CAPITAL CORPORATION; BRIAN
THOMAS MOYNIHAN; EDWARD
PATRICK O’KEEFE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 5, 2017
Pasadena, California
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).
Before: MOTZ, M. SMITH, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Stephen Yagman appeals the district court’s order dismissing without leave to
amend his RICO and state law claims against Nationstar Mortgage, LLC. We review
de novo, Johnson v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 793 F.3d 1005, 1007 (9th Cir.
2015) (per curiam), and affirm.
Yagman asserts that Nationstar, his mortgage servicer, had no right to
payments on his mortgage loan because the note and deed of trust securing the loan
were neither timely nor properly assigned to Nationstar. In dismissing Yagman’s
amended complaint, the district court reasoned that Yagman lacked standing to
challenge the validity of any defective assignment of his loan or deed of trust.
On appeal, Yagman relies on Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corporation,
365 P.3d 845 (Cal. 2016). There, the Supreme Court of California held that a
borrower has standing to bring suit if (1) the borrower “suffered a nonjudicial
foreclosure,” and (2) the borrower properly alleges that an assignment was void, not
merely voidable. Id. at 848; see also id. at 861. Yvanova provides no assistance to
Yagman; his property has not been subject to a nonjudicial foreclosure. As we have
in the past, we join the majority of courts that have declined to extend Yvanova. See,
e.g., Jean-Louis v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 676 F. App’x 717, 718 (9th Cir.
The Honorable Diana Gribbon Motz, United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit, sitting by designation.
2
2017) (mem.); Williams v. Bank of Am., N.A., ___ F. App’x, No. 15-17335, 2017
WL 2983055, at *1 (9th Cir. July 13, 2017) (mem.); Saterbak v. JPMorgan, 199 Cal.
Rptr. 3d 790, 795-96 (Ct. App. 2016), reh’g denied, (Apr.11, 2016), review denied
(July 13, 2016). The district court properly dismissed Yagman’s action because
Yagman lacks standing to challenge any defective assignment of his loan or deed of
trust.
Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Yagman
leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See, e.g., Chinatown
Neighborhood Ass’n v. Harris, 794 F.3d 1136, 1144-45 (9th Cir. 2015).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court dismissing Yagman’s
complaint is
AFFIRMED.
3