You are on page 1of 9

Case: 15-35963, 08/26/2016, ID: 10101730, DktEntry: 51, Page 1 of 9

Case No. 15-35963


IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LNV CORPORATION, A Nevada Corporation,


Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DENISE SUBRAMANIAM,
Defendant-Appellant,
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Case No. 3:14-CV-01836-MO
APPELLANTS REPLY IN OPPOSITION
TO APPELLEES OPPOSITION TO APPELLANTS
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF
APPELLANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION
Denise Subramaniam
1704 Cornwall Ln
Sachse, TX 75048
Tel: (503) 764-5300
Email: d.subramaniam@aol.com
Defendant-Appellant Pro Se

-0-

Case: 15-35963, 08/26/2016, ID: 10101730, DktEntry: 51, Page 2 of 9

Well, if she's in default on a note that's forged, then she's not in


default in a way that matters right? You have to have an
authentic note for her to be in default on it, don't you? Isn't that
sort of the basic foundation of foreclosure?
Hon. Chief Judge Michael W. Mosman
Status Conference, July 8, 2015
District Court Transcript
9thCCA.Dkt. 47, Exh. A, p. 16

APPELLANTS REPLY IN OPPOSITION


I.

INTRODUCTION
A.

LNVS Meritless Opposition Warrants Sanctions

LNV purports to oppose Ms. Subramaniams Request for Judicial Notice in


Support of her Motion for Summary Disposition. LNVs not-so-cleverly disguised
Answering Brief (Dkt. 50) is in fact and in truth their fourth brief in opposition
to Ms. Subramaniams Motion for Summary Disposition -- in violation of this
Courts ORDER suspending briefing (Dkt. 41). Despite having been served with
the Court ORDER, LNV unleashed a tsunami of frivolous, meritless, vexatious
pleadings upon this Court and Ms. Subramaniam (Dkts. 42, 46, 48 and 50).
B.

District Court Is the Proper Forum for LNVs Newest Defenses

In just 48 hours, LNV has changed its story three times and introduced all
sorts of wild fantastical theories for the first time in this litigation all of which
-1-

Case: 15-35963, 08/26/2016, ID: 10101730, DktEntry: 51, Page 3 of 9

should be left to the district court to decide. Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v.
City & County of Honolulu, 455 F.3d 910, 918 n.3 (9th Cir.2006) ([c]onsideration
of the[] documents is best left to the district court, not to the court of appeals for
initial analysis).
LNV failed to submit evidence in the Appellees Answering Brief (Dkt. 33)
of some alleged pre-incorporation agreement with Residential that is new
information (if it even exists, which is doubtful) best left for the district court to
examine. In fact and in truth, LNV has submitted nothing to show that it actually
paid for Ms. Subramaniams Property, but instead has proven beyond refute that
Ms. Subramaniam was paying for her Property. It appears that LNV just wants
another free house.
LNV vexatiously multiplies this litigation to thwart the efficiency of
summary reversal, but [t]here must be an end to litigation someday Ackermann
v. United States, 340 U.S. 198 (1950), [cited in] Perry v. Veolia Transport, No. 11CV-176-LAB-RBB (S.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2014).
Ms. Subramaniam respectfully requests that this Court GRANT her Motion
for Summary Disposition.
//
//
//
//
-2-

Case: 15-35963, 08/26/2016, ID: 10101730, DktEntry: 51, Page 4 of 9

II.

RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND


A.

LNV Did Not Exist On March 10, 2008 When Residential


Purports To Transfer The Note, Issue An Allonge And Assign The
Deed of Trust to LNV

This appeal is the type of appeal contemplated by this Courts summary


reversal of Gieseke vs. Bank of America, N.A., 9thCCA, Case No. 14-16651, (Cal.
May 20, 2016).

On March 10, 2008, Residential Funding Company, LLC

(Residential) purports to transfer Ms. Subramaniams promissory note, issue an


allonge, and transfer her deed of trust to LNV Corporation. LNV Corporation did
not exist on March 10, 2008 rendering the attempted transfer of the promissory
note, attempted issuance of the allonge, and attempted assignment of the deed of
trust void ab initio. Gieseke, Id.
B.

LNV Is Not The Real Party In Interest And Lacked


Standing To Bring The District Court Action And Lacked
Standing To Foreclose

LNV Corporation is not the real party in interest. The real party in interest
(whoever that might be) has made no appearance in this action, nor submitted a
declaration, affidavit, deposition nor testimony of any kind whatsoever informing
this Court why it attempted to transfer the note, issue an allonge, and assign the
deed of trust to an outfit that did not exist (LNV Corporation). The real party in
interest has taken no action to protect, preserve or assert any of its purported legal
-3-

Case: 15-35963, 08/26/2016, ID: 10101730, DktEntry: 51, Page 5 of 9

rights. The real party in interest has made no claim in this action of mistake or
clerical error. Since LNV did not exist on March 10, 2008 (at the time that
Residential purports to transfer the note, issue an allonge, and assign the deed of
trust), neither action nor inaction by Residential or LNV can ratify the void transfer
of the note, void allonge, and void assignment of the deed of trust.
LNVs sole cause of action was for judicial foreclosure. Because LNV is not
the real party in interest, LNV lacked standing to bring the district action and
lacked standing to foreclose. Standing cannot be conferred by agreement and thus
LNV cannot acquire standing in this action through Residential.
III.

THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED


Ms. Subramaniam submitted the declaration of Catherine Gebhardt (District

Court Dkt. 102).

Attached was the certified copy of LNVs Articles of

Incorporation (District Court Dkt. 102-8), preserving the facts, arguments and
objections contained therein for this very appeal.
Ms. Subramaniam put LNV on notice that she was relying on the argument
that LNV did not exist on March 10, 2008 rendering the purported transfer of the
note and assignment of the deed of trust void ab initio. LNV fails to state that it
did not understand the objection. The objection is clear from the context of even
Hon. Judge Mosmans statements. Id. To the contrary, LNV acknowledges that it
has known about Ms. Subramaniams factual allegation that LNV did not exist on
March 10, 2008 since at least September 28, 2015. LNV states Appellant filed
-4-

Case: 15-35963, 08/26/2016, ID: 10101730, DktEntry: 51, Page 6 of 9

an affidavit from a Catherine Gebhardt in support of her second response in


opposition to LNVs summary judgment motion on September 28, 2015 This
affidavit attached LNVs Articles of Incorporation.

[Opp. at 7:footnote #2].

Based thereon, LNV has known for approximately 11 months that Ms.
Subramaniam was arguing void assignment because LNV did not exist on March
10, 2008.

LNVs failure to address the argument in its Appellees Answering

Brief is immaterial.
Ms. Subramaniam argued that LNV did not exist on March 10, 2008 by
producing LNVs certified Articles of Incorporation. The district court however
resolved the issues in favor of LNV. The district court credited the evidence of the
party seeking summary judgment (LNVs copy of the void assignment and void
allonge), and failed to properly acknowledge key evidence offered by the party
opposing that motion (Ms. Subramaniams certified copy of LNVs Articles of
Incorporation, showing that LNV did not exist on March 10, 2008 at the time of
the purported assignment and transfer of the note), which, according to which,
according to Tolan, Id, reflects a clear misapprehension of summary judgment
standards in light of U.S. Supreme Court precedents. Cf. Brosseau v. Haugen, 543
U. S., at 197198, (2004) (per curiam). The issue of wrongful foreclosure based on
void assignments was thoroughly examined by both Ms. Subramaniam and LNV
Corporation in the district court case and in the instant appeal.

-5-

Case: 15-35963, 08/26/2016, ID: 10101730, DktEntry: 51, Page 7 of 9

IV.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IS PROPER


Judicial notice of LNVS certified Articles of Incorporaton is appropriate

because their contents and authenticity cannot reasonably be disputed. Under


Federal Rule of Evidence, Rule 201(b), judicial notice is proper for facts that are
capable of accurate and ready determination by resorting to sources whose
accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned. E.g. the Nevada Secretary of State.
Matters that are appropriate for judicial notice include matters of public record
(See, Mack v. South Bay Beer Distributors, Inc., (9th Cir. 1986) 798 F.2d 1279,
1282). When a party has requested judicial notice and supplied the court with the
necessary information, judicial notice is mandatory. (Federal Rule of Evidence,
Rule 201(d)).
The Court may take judicial notice of the content of [r]ecords of (1) any
court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of
the United States.

Evid. Code 452(d).

LNVs certified Articles of

Incorporation were on file with the district court. District Court Dkt. 102-8.
California courts routinely take judicial notice of court proceedings. See, e.g.
People v. Lawley, 27 Cal. 4th 102, 116 n.2 & 163 n.24 (2002) (taking judicial
notice of court files and transcripts from another criminal case); People v. Moreno,
108 Cal. App. 4th 1, 4 n.4 (2003) (taking judicial notice of record in prior appeal);
PG & E Corp. v. Pub. Util. Commn, 118 Cal. App. 4th 1174, 1220 n.38 (2004)
(judicially noticing complaints filed against defendant in other proceedings under
-6-

Case: 15-35963, 08/26/2016, ID: 10101730, DktEntry: 51, Page 8 of 9

Evidence Code 452(d)); Oriola v. Thaler, 84 Cal. App. 4th 397, 403 & n.3
(2000) (judicially noticing transcript related to injunction proceeding).

LNVs

argument against judicial notice of its certified Articles of Incorporation lacks


merit in all respects.
V.

CONCLUSION
For all of these reasons jointly and severally, Appellant Denise

Subramaniam respectfully requests that this Court grant her Motion for Summary
Disposition.
Dated: August 25, 2016

Respectfully submitted,
Denise Subramaniam
/s/ Denise Subramaniam
________________________________

Defendant-Appellant Pro Se

-7-

Case: 15-35963, 08/26/2016, ID: 10101730, DktEntry: 51, Page 9 of 9