Justia U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

This case required the court to determine whether a mortgage company violated Hawaii state law when it did not publicly announce the postponement of a foreclosure sale of property owned by appellant, and if so, to ascertain the proper remedy for that violation. The court held that the lack of public announcement did violate Hawaii's nonjudicial foreclosure statute, and this defect was a deceptive practice under state law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the bankruptcy court's avoidance of the foreclosure sale. However, the court remanded to the bankruptcy court for a proper calculation of attorney's fees and damages under Hawaii Revised Statute 480-13.

Plaintiffs, a group of investors defrauded by the "Millennium Ponzi scheme," sought recourse against JPMorgan, alleging that WaMu aided and abetted the Ponzi scheme by providing banking services to several companies controlled by the scheme's principals despite actual knowledge of the fraud. JPMorgan, they argued, was liable as successor in interest of WaMu and was liable because it continued WaMu's problematic processes following assumption. The district court dismissed plaintiffs' complaints for failure to exhaust the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), Pub. L. No. 101-73, 103 Stat. 183. The court concluded that litigants could not avoid FIRREA's administrative requirements through strategic pleading. Accordingly, the court concluded that a claim asserted against a purchasing bank based on the conduct of a failed bank must be exhausted under FIRREA. Claims based on a purchasing bank's post-purchase actions are not governed by FIRREA. They could not, and accordingly need not, be exhausted before the FDIC. Although the court agreed with plaintiffs' legal argument on this score, the court concluded that it had no application to the case at bar. Plaintiffs did not adequately plead a claim based on JPMorgan's independent conduct; they relied instead solely on conclusory allegations. Therefore, the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' claims, along with its subsequent denial of plaintiffs' Rule 60(b) motion was proper.

Defendants, ICC and Charles D. Hendrickson, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on her claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692, and the district court's orders granting three of plaintiff's post-summary judgment motions. The court affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment under Rule 56 where the district court held that there was no genuine issue of material fact but that ICC had violated the FDCPA and that Hendrickson was personally liable as ICC's sole owner, officer, and director because he qualified as a "debt collector" under the FDCPA. The notice of appeal was untimely filed as to the latter three post-summary judgment orders and were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs brought this putative class action against KeyBank, alleging violations of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200, in connection with private student loans that KeyBank extended to plaintiffs. The court concluded that (1) the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) 9 U.S.C. 1 et seq., preempted the Broughton-Cruz rule and (2) the arbitration clause in the parties' contracts must be enforced because it was not unconscionable. Therefore, the court did not reach the question, presented in Appeal No. 10-15934, whether the NBA and the regulations of the OCC preempted plaintiffs' UCL claims. Accordingly, in Interlocutory Appeal No. 09-16703, the court reversed the district court's denial of KeyBank's motion to compel arbitration, vacated the judgment, and remanded to the district court with instructions to enter an order staying the case and compelling arbitration. Because the disposition of that appeal rendered the district court's subsequent dismissal order a nullity, the court dismissed Appeal No. 10-15934 as moot.

Plaintiff sought rescission of her loan secured by a trust deed with the Bank for alleged violations of disclosure requirements under the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. The district court dismissed the suit as untimely because it was filed after the three-year period set by 15 U.S.C. 1635(f). Plaintiff argued that because she gave the Bank timely notice of rescission, she was not required to bring suit within the three-year period, and the district court erred in dismissing the case. The court held that, under the court's precedent and Supreme Court precedent, the time limit established by section 1635(f) was applicable here. Moreover, as explained in Miguel v. Country Funding Corp., section 1635(f) was a three-year statute of repose, requiring dismissal of a claim for rescission brought more than three years after the consummation of the loan secured by the first trust deed, regardless of when the borrower sent notice of rescission. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

This case arose from a landlord-tenant dispute in the wake of the WaMu failure in September 2008. GE alleged that Chase failed to pay rent on two properties under lease agreements that Chase assumed after it purchased WaMu's assets and liabilities from the FDIC pursuant to terms of a written Purchase & Assumption Agreement (P&A Agreement). GE filed suit against Chase alleging breach of the lease agreements and the district court granted Chase's motion to dismiss GE's complaint on the grounds that GE lacked standing to enforce or interpret the terms of the P&A Agreement. The court held that because GE was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the P&A Agreement, GE had no enforceable rights under that contract. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

This case concerned a Railcar Contract with TriMet that required Colorado Railcar to secure a $3 million standby letter of credit, which Colorado Railcar arranged through Collateral II, a bankruptcy remote entity. TrimMet certified Collateral II's default and drew on the Letter of Credit when Colorado Railcar defaulted. At issue was whether Collateral II was a surety to Colorado Railcar, entitled to the defense of discharge. The court held that it was not. Because the standby letter of credit issued by KeyBank required TriMet to certify Collateral II's default, TriMet sought clarification that should Colorado Railcar default, TriMet's authority to certify Collateral II's default would be triggered. In response to TriMet's concern, Collateral II agreed to become a part of the Railcar Contract via Modification No. 1, but it undertook no new obligation nor did it subject itself to any additional liability beyond what it previously undertook by securing the Letter of Credit at Colorado Railcar's direction. Thus, no suretyship was created. Because Collateral II was not entitled to the protections of a surety, it was error for the district court to grant summary judgment in its favor.

Vegas Diamond and Johnson Investments appealed from the district court's order granting the Ex Parte Motion to Dissolve Temporary Restraining Order filed by the FDIC as receiver for La Jolla Bank. The district court determined that 12 U.S.C. 1821(j), the anti-injunction provision of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 precluded a court from enjoining the FDIC from conducting a trustee's sale of the real properties. The court held that the appeal was moot because the real properties were sold during the pendency of the appeal.

Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging, among other things, a violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. The district court subsequently granted defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion and plaintiffs timely appealed. The court held that plaintiffs clearly alleged in their complaint that they were never given a Notice of Right to Cancel that complied with TILA. Consequently, the complaint was not subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) and therefore, the court reversed and remanded.

This case stemmed from a putative class action challenging origination and foreclosure procedures for home loans maintained within the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS). Plaintiffs appealed from the dismissal of their First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. The court was unpersuaded that plaintiffs' allegations were sufficient to support their claims. Although plaintiffs alleged that aspects of the MERS system were fraudulent, they could not establish that they were misinformed about the MERS system, relied on any misinformation in entering into their home loans, or were injured as a result of the misinformation. Although plaintiffs contended that they could state a claim for wrongful foreclosure, Arizona state law did not recognize this cause of action and their claim was without a basis. Plaintiffs' claim depended upon the conclusion that any home loan within the MERS system was unenforceable through a foreclosure sale, but that conclusion was unsupported by the facts and law on which they relied. Therefore, because plaintiffs failed to establish a plausible basis for relief on these and their other claims raised on appeal, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint without leave to amend.