Joel Beck v. Nationstar Mortgage
700 F. App'x 691
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Joel Beck, proceeding pro se, sued over matters related to his mortgage and foreclosure, asserting federal and Nevada state-law claims.
- Defendants removed the action to federal court; Beck moved to remand to state court alleging improper removal due to lack of defendant unanimity.
- The district court dismissed Beck’s complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a plausible claim and denied leave to amend as futile.
- The district court denied Beck’s remand motion because he did not file it within 30 days of the notice of removal.
- Beck did not object to the magistrate judge’s settlement-related orders in district court; the district court’s disposition was appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed: dismissal of state-law claims, denial of remand, denial of leave to amend, and refusal to consider settlement-order challenges for lack of objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of state-law claims (12(b)(6)) | Beck argued his pleadings stated valid state-law claims related to mortgage/foreclosure. | Defendants argued Beck failed to plead facts plausibly supporting those claims. | Court: Dismissal affirmed; Beck’s pro se status insufficient to cure implausible allegations. |
| Remand for improper removal (lack of unanimity) | Beck argued removal was defective because not all defendants consented, so case must be remanded. | Defendants argued remand was untimely because Beck did not file within the 30-day limit. | Court: Denial of remand affirmed; remand motions for procedural defects must be filed within 30 days of removal. |
| Leave to amend complaint | Beck sought leave to amend to cure defects. | Defendants argued amendment would be futile given governing law and pleaded facts. | Court: Denial of leave to amend affirmed because amendment would be futile. |
| Review of magistrate judge settlement orders | Beck challenged settlement-related orders on appeal. | Defendants asserted Beck forfeited appellate review by not objecting in district court. | Court: Issues forfeited; appellate review denied for failure to timely object. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard for de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and amendment futility)
- Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir. 2010) (pro se pleadings are liberally construed but must contain plausible factual allegations)
- Edelstein v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 286 P.3d 249 (Nev. 2012) (MERS can act as beneficiary; separation of trust deed instruments does not permanently bar foreclosure; entity entitled to enforce note and deed may foreclose)
- Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2009) (standard of review on remand motions)
- N. Cal. Dist. Council of Laborers v. Pittsburg-Des Moines Steel Co., 69 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 1995) (§ 1447(c) requires remand motions for procedural defects within 30 days of removal)
- Atl. Nat’l Tr. LLC v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 621 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2010) (lack of defendant unanimity is a removable-procedure defect under § 1447(c))
- Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2015) (failure to timely object to magistrate nondispositive orders forfeits appellate review)
- Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) (appellate courts generally do not consider issues not raised in opening brief)