Richard Breinholt v. Aegis Wholesale Corporation
670 F. App'x 569
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Richard and Susan Breinholt (pro se) sued multiple defendants raising federal and state law claims related to foreclosure and deed of trust matters.
- Defendants included lenders, trustees, servicers, MERS, title companies, and process servers (e.g., OneWest, Aegis, MERS, Tri-County, Regional Trustee Services, Pioneer Lender Trustee Services, TitleOne, Robinson Tait, P.S.).
- A prior state-court action between the parties (or their privies) resulted in a final judgment; some claims in the federal suit were raised or could have been raised there.
- The district court dismissed various defendants under Rule 12(b)(6) either as barred by res judicata or for failure to plead plausible claims; it also denied the Breinholts’ Rule 60(b) motion for relief.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo the 12(b)(6) dismissals and abuse-of-discretion review for the Rule 60(b) denial, and affirmed the district court in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Res judicata bars claims against Aegis, OneWest, Tri-County, Regional Trustee, Pioneer | Breinholts argued claims were not precluded | Defendants argued prior state-court final judgment precluded relitigation | Affirmed: Claims barred by res judicata (could have been raised earlier) |
| Sufficiency of claims against MERS, TitleOne, Jennifer Tait, Robinson Tait, P.S. | Breinholts alleged recording/beneficiary issues and other defects | Defendants argued pleadings lacked factual allegations to state plausible claims and MERS nominee status is valid under Idaho law | Affirmed: Pleadings insufficient; claims dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) |
| Motion for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) | Breinholts sought relief from judgment | Defendants opposed; no grounds shown for relief | Affirmed: District court did not abuse discretion in denying Rule 60(b) motion |
| Challenges to nonjudicial foreclosure/ownership of note | Breinholts contended trustee must prove note ownership before foreclosure | Defendants/authorities contended nonjudicial foreclosure may proceed without proving note ownership | Affirmed: Idaho law permits trustee to initiate nonjudicial foreclosure without proving note ownership |
Key Cases Cited
- Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard for pleading foreclosure-related claims and recording system discussion)
- Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir. 2010) (pro se pleadings construed liberally but must state plausible claims)
- Holcombe v. Hosmer, 477 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2007) (federal courts apply state law on res judicata to state judgments)
- Pocatello Hosp., LLC v. Quail Ridge Med. Investor, LLC, 339 P.3d 1136 (Idaho 2014) (elements and preclusive effect of res judicata under Idaho law)
- Kawai Farms, Inc. v. Longstreet, 826 P.2d 1322 (Idaho 1992) (voluntary dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment for res judicata purposes)
- Edwards v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 300 P.3d 43 (Idaho 2013) (holding that naming MERS as beneficiary/nominee satisfies deed of trust requirements)
- Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 1993) (standards for reconsideration and Rule 60(b) review)
- Trotter v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 275 P.3d 857 (Idaho 2012) (Idaho law on trustee-initiated nonjudicial foreclosure without proving ownership of the note)