NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 18 2021

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

PABLO A. CASTELLANOS No. 20-15660

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-02428-SPL

JUDITH T. CASTELLANOS MEMORANDUM* Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.; QUALITY LOAN SERVICING CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE CO.; BANK OF AMERICA, NA, named as Bank of America, National Association as Successor by Merger to LaSale Bank National Association, as Trustee for Certificate Holders of Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities ILLC, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-HE3; ENCORE CREDIT CORP.; JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE CO. Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Submitted October 14, 2021** San Francisco, California

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Pablo Castellanos appeals from the district court’s order granting summary

judgement for Defendants-Appellees on his claim for wrongful recording under

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-420(A). As the facts are known to the parties, we repeat them

only as necessary to explain our decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291.1

The district court properly entered summary judgment for Defendants-

Appellees on Castellanos’s wrongful recording claim:

Defendants established that, given the plain text of the deed of trust, the

legal theory of Castellanos’s complaint satisfied neither element of wrongful

recording: (1) that Defendants’ recorded assignments of the deed of trust or

recorded notices of trustee sale were forged, contained false or misleading

information, or were otherwise invalid; and (2) that Defendants knew or had reason

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 1 Defendants-Appellees JPMorgan Chase Bank and California Reconveyance Company “do not agree” that Castellanos’s appeal is timely, which, if correct, would be fatal to our appellate jurisdiction. See Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248 (1992). However, the “Notice” Castellanos filed on April 10, 2019, constituted the “functional equivalent” of a notice of appeal, id. at 249; see Lolli v. County of Orange, 351 F.3d 410, 414 (9th Cir. 2003), and was filed within the deadline for filing a notice of appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). 2 to know of any such putative falsities or defects. See Ariz. Rev. Stat § 33-420(A).

Castellanos failed to proffer sufficient competent evidence to the contrary—viz.,

evidence establishing a genuine issue of material fact as to either element of

wrongful recording; therefore, Defendants were entitled to summary judgment as a

matter of law.2 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).

AFFIRMED.

2 Relatedly, given Castellanos’s failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and with the deadlines for expert witness disclosures set by the district court’s Case Management Order, the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider the declaration of Castellanos’s putative expert witness when ruling on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. See Wong v. Regents of Univ. of California, 410 F.3d 1052, 1060, 1062 (9th Cir. 2005). 3