Robert Demetriou v. Jp Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. , 624 F. App'x 598 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             DEC 16 2015
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    ROBERT JAMES DEMETRIOU,                          No. 12-56657
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:11-cv-05522-JFW-
    VBK
    v.
    J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,                    MEMORANDUM*
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted: December 9, 2015**
    Before:        WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    Robert James Demetriou appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
    judgment in his diversity action arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have
    jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo. Kaplan v. City of N. Las
    Vegas, 
    323 F.3d 1226
    , 1229 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    The district court properly granted summary judgment because JP Morgan
    Chase Bank, N.A. had statutory authority to initiate nonjudicial foreclosure
    proceedings. See 
    Cal. Civ. Code § 2924
    (a)(1) (a “trustee, mortgagee, or
    beneficiary, or any of their authorized agents” may initiate the foreclosure
    process); see also Jenkins v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 
    156 Cal. Rptr. 3d 912
    ,
    928 (Ct. App. 2013) (holding that a loan servicer, as agent for the beneficiary, may
    record a notice of default and initiate nonjudicial foreclosure); Gomes v.
    Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 
    121 Cal. Rptr. 3d 819
    , 824 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)
    (California law does not “provide for a judicial action to determine whether the
    person initiating the foreclosure process is indeed authorized” absent “a specific
    factual basis for alleging that the foreclosure was not initiated by the correct
    party”).
    We do not consider Demetriou’s judicial estoppel argument because it was
    raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2
    (9th Cir. 2009).
    Appellee’s uncontested request for judicial notice, filed on June 13, 2013, is
    granted.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                       12-56657
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-56657

Citation Numbers: 624 F. App'x 598

Filed Date: 12/16/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023