Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2017

Stephen Yagman v. Nationstar Mortgage

Stephen Yagman v. Nationstar Mortgage
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided October 17, 2017 · Smith, Nguyen
699 F. App'x 634

Counsel

Joseph Reichmann, Esquire, Attorney, Yagman & Reichmann, Venice Beach, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant, Stephen Yagman, Pro Se, David A. Berkley, Kerry W. Franich, Severson & Werson, Irvine, CA, Jan T. Chilton, Attorney, Kalama M. Lui-Kwan, Esquire, Attorney, John B. Sullivan, Esquire, Erik W. Kemp, Esquire, Severson & Werson APC, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, Nationstar Holdings, Nationstar Capital Corporation, David A. Berkley, Severson & Werson, Irvine, CA, Jan T. Chilton, Attorney, Kala-ma M. Lui-Kwan, Esquire, Attorney, John B. Sullivan, Esquire, Erik W. Kemp, Es-J quire, Severson & Werson APC, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Nationstar Mortgage Holdings, Inc., Na-tionstar, LLC, Matthew W. Close, Brittany Alison Rogers, Attorney, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Brian Thomas Moynihan, Edward Patrick O’Keefe

Stephen Yagman v. Nationstar Mortgage

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Stephen Yagman appeals the district court’s order dismissing without leave to amend his RICO and state law claims against Nationstar Mortgage, LLC. We review de novo, Johnson v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 793 F.3d 1005, 1007 (9th Cir. 2015) (per curiam), and affirm.

Yagman asserts that Nationstar, his mortgage servicer, had no right to payments on his mortgage loan because the note and deed of trust securing the loan were neither timely nor properly assigned to Nationstar. In dismissing Yagman’s amended complaint, the district court reasoned that Yagman lacked standing to challenge the validity of any defective assignment of his loan or deed of trust.

On appeal, Yagman relies on Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corporation, 62 Cal.4th 919, 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 66, 365 P.3d 845 (2016), There, the Supreme Court of California held that a borrower has standing to bring suit if (1) the borrower “suffered a nonjudicial foreclosure,” and (2) the borrower properly alleges that an assignment was void, not merely voidable. Id., 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 66, 365 P.3d at 848; see also id. 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 66, 365 P.3d at 861. Yvanova provides no assistance to Yagman; his property has not been subject to a nonjudicial foreclosure. As we have in the past, we join the majority of courts that have declined to extend Yvanova. See, e.g., Jean-Louis v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 676 Fed.Appx. 717, 718 (9th Cir. 2017) (mem.); Williams v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 15-17335, — Fed.Appx. —, —, 2017 WL 2983055, at *1 (9th Cir. July 13, 2017) (mem.); Saterbak v. JPMorgan, 245 Cal.App.4th 808, 199 Cal. Rptr,3d 790, 795-96 (2016), reh’g denied, (Apr.11, 2016), review denied (July 13, 2016). The district court properly dismissed Yagman’s action because Yagman lacks standing to challenge any defective assignment of his loan or deed of trust.

Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Yagman leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See, e.g., Chinatown Neighborhood Ass’n v. Harris, 794 F.3d 1136, 1144-45 (9th Cir. 2015).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court dismissing Yagman’s complaint is

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.