Jose E. Hernandez v. Indymac Bank;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE E. HERNANDEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
INDYMAC BANK; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-16134
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00369-MMD-
CWH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Jose E. Hernandez appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his diversity action alleging wrongful foreclosure. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Bourne Valley Court Tr.
v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 832 F.3d 1154, 1157 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
APR 16 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-16134
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Hernandez
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Quality
Loan Service Corporation lacked authority to commence foreclosure proceedings
on behalf of defendant Deutsche Bank by recording a notice of default. See Nev.
Rev. Stat. § 107.080(2)(b) (as effective from Oct. 1, 2007 to June 30, 2009) (giving
the beneficiary authority to execute and record a notice of default); Simmons Self-
Storage v. Rib Roof, Inc., 331 P.3d 850, 856 (Nev. 2014) (defining when an agent
has actual authority).
Contrary to Hernandez’s contention, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in considering defendants’ evidence on summary judgment. See Orr v.
Bank of Am., NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 773-74 (setting forth standard of review and
discussing requirements for authentication of evidence on summary judgment).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hernandez’s motion
for reconsideration because Hernandez failed to establish any basis for relief. See
Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 940, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (standard of review
and grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --