In this appeal from an order dismissing his complaint seeking to prevent foreclosure, appellant Joseph Castagnaro argued primarily that the foreclosing entity lacked the authority to foreclose, because that entity held only the mortgage on the property and not the promissory note that Cas-tagnaro had executed in favor of the original lender. We certified questions to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, see Castagnaro v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 772 F.3d 734, 739-40 (1st Cir. 2014), including whether New Hampshire law requires the *32 foreclosing entity to hold both the mortgage and the note, and

[i]f so, can an agency relationship between the note holder and the mortgage holder meet that requirement, and does language in the mortgage naming the . mortgagee “nominee for the lender and ' lender’s successors and assigns” suffice on its own to show an adequate agency relationship?

Id. at 739.

We have received an answer from the New Hampshire Supreme Court to our questions. See Castagnaro v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 168 N.H. 521, 132 A.3d 1202 (2016). Relying on its decision in Bergeron v. N.Y. Cmty. Bank, 168 N.H. 63, 121 A.3d 821 (2015), the New Hampshire Supreme. Court held that any requirement under New Hampshire law that the note holder and foreclosing mortgage holder be the same is satisfied by an agency relationship, and. that “language in the mortgage naming the mortgagee ‘nominee for lender and lender's successors and assigns’” is sufficient to show the required agency relationship. See Castagnaro, 132 A.3d at 1202. In light of the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s response to our questions we affirm the district court’s dismissal of this action.