James Will Bonham v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a corporation; UNKNOWN PARTIES, Does 1-10

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES WILL BONHAM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a
corporation; UNKNOWN PARTIES, Does
1-10,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-15045
D.C. No. 2:13-cv-02220-SRB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
James Will Bonham appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his diversity action asserting a quiet title claim. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure
FILED
JUN 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Hebbe v.
Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Bonham’s action because Bonham’s
contentions that the alleged securitization of his note rendered the deed of trust or
note unenforceable fail as a matter of law. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Even if we were to accept the
plaintiffs’ premise[] that . . . the note is split from the deed, we would reject the
plaintiffs’ conclusion that, as a necessary consequence, no party has the power to
foreclose.”). Further, defendant was not required to show Bonham the note or
otherwise prove its authority to foreclose. See Hogan v. Wash. Mutual Bank, N.A.,
277 P.3d 781, 781 (Ariz. 2012) (“We hold that Arizona’s non-judicial foreclosure
statutes do not require the beneficiary to prove its authority or ‘show the note’
before the trustee may commence a non-judicial foreclosure.”).
Dismissal of Bonham’s action without a hearing did not violate Bonham’s
rights to due process or a jury trial. See Novak v. United States, 795 F.3d 1012,
1023 (9th Cir. 2015) (due process does not require a court to hold a hearing on a
party’s motion to dismiss); Lies v. Farrell Lines, Inc., 641 F.2d 765, 771 n.8 (9th
Cir. 1981) (describing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) as one device “for
a judge to remove a case from a jury”).
14-15045 2

-- 2 of 3 --

We reject as without merit Bonham’s contention that the district court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction.
Bonham’s pending requests, set forth in the opening brief, are denied.
AFFIRMED.
14-15045 3

-- 3 of 3 --