Richard Breinholt v. Popular Warehouse Lender
670 F. App'x 566
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs Richard and Susan Breinholt (pro se) sued multiple defendants alleging federal and state foreclosure-related claims arising after a prior state-court proceeding between the parties.
- Defendants included OneWest Bank, FSB; TitleOne Corporation; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS); and Transnation Title & Escrow, Inc.
- The district court dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and awarded attorney’s fees to Transnation; it also denied the Breinholts’ Rule 60(b) motion and a motion to remand.
- The district court found the Breinholts’ claims against OneWest barred by res judicata based on a final state-court judgment and dismissed claims against TitleOne and MERS for failure to plead plausible claims.
- The Breinholts appealed pro se; the Ninth Circuit reviewed dismissal de novo and denial of Rule 60(b) and fee award for abuse of discretion.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed: res judicata barred claims vs. OneWest; pleadings against TitleOne and MERS were insufficient; Rule 60(b) relief was unjustified; fee award was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Res judicata as to OneWest | Breinholts contended foreclosure-related claims could proceed despite prior state judgment | OneWest argued prior state-court final judgment barred the claims | Affirmed: res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised in prior Idaho action |
| Sufficiency of pleadings as to TitleOne | Breinholts asserted TitleOne committed actionable misconduct in foreclosure process | TitleOne argued Breinholts failed to allege facts showing plausible claims | Affirmed: pleadings insufficient under Rule 12(b)(6) for TitleOne |
| Sufficiency of pleadings as to MERS | Breinholts challenged MERS’s role/standing as nominee/beneficiary | MERS argued recording system and nominee status valid under law; pleadings lack plausible facts | Affirmed: pleadings fail to state a claim; challenges to MERS rejected |
| Rule 60(b) motion | Breinholts sought relief from judgment (various grounds) | Defendants argued no basis for reconsideration or relief | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; Breinholts did not show grounds for 60(b) relief |
| Attorney’s fees to Transnation | Breinholts opposed fee award | Transnation justified fees based on prevailing-party or contractual entitlement | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion awarding fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard for pleading and discussion of MERS/recording system)
- Cigna Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Polaris Pictures Corp., 159 F.3d 412 (9th Cir. 1998) (appellate affirmation may rest on any ground supported by record)
- Pocatello Hosp., LLC v. Quail Ridge Med. Investor, LLC, 339 P.3d 1136 (Idaho 2014) (Idaho res judicata elements and bar on claims that could have been raised)
- Holcombe v. Hosmer, 477 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2007) (federal courts apply state law on res judicata for state judgments)
- Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir. 2010) (pro se pleadings construed liberally but still must plead plausible claims)
- Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635 (9th Cir. 1988) (district court may sua sponte dismiss where plaintiffs cannot possibly win relief)
- Edwards v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 300 P.3d 43 (Idaho 2013) (MERS as nominee conforms to Idaho deed of trust requirements)
- Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 1993) (standards for Rule 60(b) review)
- Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) (standard of review for attorney fee awards)
- Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) (appellate courts do not consider issues not raised in opening brief)