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.

The State of Nevada filed a parens patriae lawsuit against Bank of America in Clark County District Court, alleging that the Bank misled Nevada consumers about the terms and operation of its home mortgage modification and foreclosure processes, in violation of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Nev. Rev. Stat. 598.0903-.0999. Nevada also alleged that the Bank violated an existing consent judgment in a prior case between Nevada and several of the Bank's subsidiaries, entered in Clark County District Court. The Bank removed the action to federal district court, asserting federal subject matter jurisdiction as either a "class action" or "mass action" under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d), and as arising under federal law, 28 U.S.C. 1331. Denying Nevada's motion to remand, the federal district court concluded that it had jurisdiction over the action as a CAFA "class action," but not as a "mass action," and that it also had federal question jurisdiction because resolving the state claims would require an interpretation of federal law. The court concluded that because parens patriae actions were not removable under CAFA, and the action did not otherwise satisfy CAFA's "mass action" requirements, the district court lacked jurisdiction under CAFA. The court also exercised its interlocutory appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1453(c) to review the district court's determination that it had federal question jurisdiction because the complaint referenced the federal Home Affordable Mortgage Program and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCP), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. The court concluded that the district court lacked federal question jurisdiction. Because there was no basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, the case was remanded to Nevada state court.

This appeal arose in the context of a civil forfeiture action instituted by the government after it seized $133,420 found in claimant's car. The currency was seized from claimant's car as proceeds traceable to controlled substances offenses. Claimant asserted that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the government after determining that claimant lacked standing. The court affirmed the judgment because the district court did not err in striking claimant's interrogatory response claiming ownership of the property and because the remaining evidence was inadequate to establish that claimant had standing.

Four mobile home park owners appealed the dismissal of their suit under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHAA), 42 U.S.C. 3604, 3617, challenging a city zoning ordinance prohibiting any mobilehome park currently operating as senior housing from converting to all-age housing. The court held that because the FHAA was silent on whether such senior housing zones were permissible and because federal regulations allow for them, the judgment of the district court was affirmed.

This case stemmed from a dispute that arose after a 20 year lease program ended in which Polar Star owned 300 units of family housing located on Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska. Polar Star leased the units back to the Air Force but the parties could not agree on the purchase price or the amount of rent payable for an additional year on the lease. The United States first sent notice of a one-year renewal of the lease, then filed a protective eminent domain action to condemn a five-month leasehold in the houses. Polar Star subsequently appealed a number of the district court's rulings. The court held that the district court correctly decided that the government's notice of renewal successfully renewed the Project Lease for one year; the district court's finding that the expiration date of the Ground Lease was the error, and therefore the lease ran for 23 years, was not clearly erroneous; the district court correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the amount of rent due from the Government to Polar Star on the renewal; Polar Star did not file an action in district court, so the only matter before the court was the Government's condemnation action; the district court correctly determined that the condemnation action should be dismissed; Polar Star's entitlement to rent beyond what the Government paid was not asserted on a claim or counterclaim in the district court; and plaintiffs may be entitled to pursue a claim in the Court of Federal Claims. Accordingly, the district court's judgment of dismissal was affirmed.

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.

Plaintiffs sued Roommate.com in federal court, alleging that the website's questions requiring disclosure of sex, sexual orientation and familial status, and its sorting, steering and matching of users based on those characteristics violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq., and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Cal. Gov't Code 12955. Because precluding individuals from selecting roommates based on their sex, sexual orientation and familial status raised substantial constitutional concerns, the court interpreted the FHA and the FEHA as not applying to the shared living units. Therefore, the court held that Roommate.com's prompting, sorting and publishing of information to facilitate roommate selection was not forbidden by the FHA or the FEHA. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded for entry of judgment for defendant. Because plaintiffs were no longer prevailing, the court vacated the district court's order for attorney's fees and dismissed the cross-appeal on attorney's fees as moot.

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.

Chapter 11 debtor, one of more than 50 subsidiaries of MMPI, filed a motion seeking a determination that it and other subsidiaries were not subject to the single asset real estate provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. 101(51B) and 362(d)(3). Creditor filed a cross motion seeking to apply the single asset real estate provisions to debtor. The district court held that debtor should be treated as a single asset real estate debtor because there was no "whole enterprise exception" to the single asset real estate provisions in the plain language of the statute. The court held that there was no error in the district court's approach and no error in the district court's application of section 101(51B). Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

Oregon's Measure 37 required state and local governments to compensate private property owners for the reduction in the fair market value of their real property that resulted from any land use regulations of those governmental entities that restricted the use of the subject properties. In this consolidated appeal, at issue was whether Oregon committed a constitutional taking, violated plaintiffs' due process rights, or violated plaintiffs' equal protection rights when Oregon voters enacted Measure 49 to replace and modify remedies available under the previous Measure 37. The court concluded that Oregon did not commit a constitutional taking when it modified Measure 37, because any potential property interest that plaintiffs had for compensation or a specific type of land use under Measure 37 had not vested. Measure 49 also did not contravene substantive due process because it did not implicate fundamental rights. For this reason, and also because the regulatory classification under Measure 49 was not based on a suspect class, Measure 49 survived rational basis scrutiny and had not violated plaintiffs' equal protection rights. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court.