Nicholas Debaggis v. US Bank
16-16527
9th Cir.Dec 8, 2017Background
- This appeal follows a prior Ninth Circuit decision (MERS I) that reversed the dismissal of one claim in Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Master Complaint (CAC) — limited to allegations that documents were forged/"robosigned" in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-420(A).
- The Ninth Circuit later clarified (MERS II) that its remand was limited to forgery/robosigning allegations and plaintiffs waived challenges beyond that scope.
- On remand, plaintiffs attempted to expand the scope of the surviving claim by redefining "robosigning" to include conduct beyond forgery and by treating false content or lack of authority as "forgery."
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding (among other things) no genuine dispute that the documents at issue were forged as that term was previously understood and preserved on remand.
- Plaintiffs conceded they had no evidence that the documents were fictitious, unsigned by the named signatories, or otherwise falsely made in the sense used in the prior decision.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court, holding the remand was limited to claims of forgery (execution-based falsification), and that plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on that claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of remand: what claims survived MERS I | Remanded claim includes robosigning broadly, allowing claims beyond literal forgery | Remand was limited to forgery/robosigning meaning forgery-related acts only | Remand limited to forgery (execution-based); other misconduct claims were waived/dismissed |
| Meaning of "robosigning"/forgery | "Robosigning" can include various misconduct (false statements, lack of authority) | "Robosigning" as used in MERS I = acts constituting forgery (false making/signature) | "Robosigning" confined to forgery involving false-making/signature, not broader misconduct |
| Whether false content = forgery | Documents containing false statements or purporting to assign interests without authority are "forgery" | Forgery concerns execution/authenticity of instrument, not truth of its substantive statements | False substantive content alone is not forgery; forgery concerns the making/signing/authenticity of the instrument |
| Evidence of forgery for summary judgment | Plaintiffs argued issues existed to avoid summary judgment | Defendants showed no evidence documents were fictitious, unsigned, or falsely made as defined | No genuine dispute of material fact on forgery; summary judgment for defendants affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 754 F.3d 772 (9th Cir. 2014) (limited remand for claims alleging forged documents/robosigning)
- A.G. v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 69, 815 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Wright v. United States, 172 F.2d 310 (9th Cir. 1949) (distinguishing forgery as false making/execution from writings that merely contain false statements)