William Wegesend v. Envision Lending Group, Inc. , 711 F. App'x 443 ( 2018 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
FEB 16 2018
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM PAUL KULANI WEGESEND; No. 14-16048
BARBARA JEAN WEGESEND,
D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00493-DKW-KSC
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ENVISION LENDING GROUP, INC.;
SECURITY NATIONAL MORTGAGE
COMPANY; SECURITY NATIONAL
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION;
JOHN DOES, 1-50; JANE DOES, 1-50;
DOE PARTNERSHIPS, 1-50;
DOE CORPORATIONS, 1-50;
DOE ENTITIES, 1-50;
DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS, 1-50,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Honolulu, Hawaii
*
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: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs-Appellants Mr. and Mrs. Wegesend assert that there is federal
court jurisdiction based on diversity. Diversity jurisdiction requires that the amount
in controversy exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The Wegesends contend that the
amount in controversy is the value of either the relevant property or the mortgages
attached to it, because this case is a quiet title case.
This case is not a quiet title case, however. The complaint did not seek to
extinguish the mortgages or any claim to the property based on the mortgage. The
litigation, were it to proceed, would at most relieve the Wegesends of their
professed uncertainty as to the identity of their lenders and the holders of the
mortgages on the property. This relief “appear[s] to be intangible, speculative, and
lack[s] the capability of being translated into monetary value.” Jackson v. Am. Bar
Ass'n, 538 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1976) (per curiam) (citations omitted). Even if
that relief could be translated into a monetary value, there is no reason to believe
the monetary value would exceed $75,000.
Our recent opinion in Corral v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. provides
further guidance. 878 F.3d 770 (9th Cir. 2017). Although “[w]hen a plaintiff seeks
to quiet title or permanently enjoin foreclosure, the object of the litigation is the
2
ownership of the property,” that is not the case when “the object of the litigation is
only a temporary injunction.” Id. at 776. In such a circumstance, “the test for
determining the amount in controversy is the pecuniary result to either party which
the judgment would directly produce.” Id. at 775 (quoting In re Ford Motor
Co./Citibank (S. Dakota), N.A., 264 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir. 2001)). Central to our
reasoning was recognition that “even if Appellants were to succeed on this lawsuit,
they would not be able to retain possession and ownership of their Property
without paying off their debt.” Id. at 776.
The reasoning in Corral applies here. Even if the Wegesends were
successful in their lawsuit, they would still need to pay off the remaining debt.
Moreover, the complaint does not allege that the defendants are making competing
claims to the mortgage, and “the Defendants agree that there is no dispute as to the
roles of each Defendant entity.” Wegesend v. Envision Lending Grp., Inc., No.
13-00493, 2014 WL 1745340, at *2 (D. Haw. Apr. 30, 2014). Neither the value of
the property nor the amount of indebtedness is a proper measure of the harm to the
defendants. See Corral, 878 F.3d at 775-76. As such, the property is not the object
of litigation, and the amount in controversy is not greater than $75,000. The
requirements for diversity jurisdiction were not met.
AFFIRMED.
3