Although the Ninth Circuit has not spoken to the validity of such declarations, a number of courts of this district have declined to accord them any weight. See Iniguez, 2013 WL 1208750, at *2 (declining to view party as nominal, despite Cal. Civ. Code § 2924l declaration, unless "the parties have stipulated to non-monetary status"); Kennedy v. PLM Lender Servs. Inc., No. C 10-04942 WHA, 2012 WL 1038632, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2012) (citing other cases taking this view); Osorio, 2012 WL 2054997, at *2 n.2 ("a declaration of non-monetary status does not render Cal-Western a nominal party if it acted improperly as a trustee"). The Court also notes that even in the state court, a Section 29241 declaration is not an irrevocable bar to litigation against a trustee, and can be rescinded as litigation proceeds.
Jenkins, 2015 WL 331114 at *9. As Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California reasoned in Kennedy v. PLM Lender Services, Inc., No. C 10-04942 WHA, 2012 WL 1038632, *6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2012): " Under the Erie doctrine, federal law governs procedure in the federal courts, irrespective of whether the substantive law at issue is state or federal.
Federal courts in California considering declarations of non-monetary status under Civil Code § 2924l have concluded that § 2924l is a state procedural rule, and that declarations of non-monetary status conflict with Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs the filing of pleadings in federal court. As Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California reasoned in Kennedy v. PLM Lender Services, Inc., No. C 10-04942 WHA, 2012 WL 1038632, *6-7 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2012): " Under the Erie doctrine, federal law governs procedure in the federal courts, irrespective of whether the substantive law at issue is state or federal.
Perez v. Am. Home Mortgage Servicing, No. C-12-00932 WHA, Dkt. No. 34 at 2 (Sept. 4, 2012). See Kennedy v. PLM Lender Servs., Inc., 2012 WL 1038632 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2012); Avila v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. C-12-01237 WHA, Dkt. No. 22 at 2 (May 21, 2012). Here, plaintiffs have objected to defendants' Section 2924l declarations, arguing that it is a state procedural issue not granted in federal court. Without a stipulation, this order agrees.
The district courts to consider the issue have not allowed parties to file a § 2924l declaration to be treated as nominal defendants in federal court under the Erie doctrine.See, e.g., Kennedy v. PLM Lender Services Inc., No. 10-cv-04942 WHA, 2012 WL 1038632 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2012); Vann v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 12-cv-01181 PJH, 2012 WL 1910032 (N.D. Cal. May 24, 2012); Tran v. Washington Mutual Bank, No. 09-cv-03277, 2010 WL 520878 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2010). This Court agrees.
In cases where the trustee filed a declaration in non-monetary status prior to an action being removed to federal court, courts in this district have found the declaration to be operative and considered the trustee not to be a party to the litigation. See Tabula v. Washington Mutual Bank, No. C10-05819 HRL, 2011 WL 1302800, at *1, n.1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2011); Cabriales v. Aurora Loan Servs., No. C 10-161 MEJ, 2010 WL 761081, at * 1, n.1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2010); but c.f. Kennedy v. PLM Lender Servs., Inc., No. C 10-04942 WHA, 2012 WL 1038632, at *5-7 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2012) (concluding in an action that was initially filed in federal court that § 2924l declarations are not recognized in federal court under the Erie doctrine). OneWest did not answer the complaint.
This Court has held that Section 2924l declarations are generally not valid in federal court proceedings. See Kennedy v. PLM Lender Services, Inc., No. 10-CV-04942, 2012 WL 1038632, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2012) (Alsup, J.). However, where the parties have stipulated to non-monetary status as to a particular defendant, this Court has upheld the agreement between the parties and treated said defendant as a nominal defendant.
While the Ninth Circuit has not ruled regarding whether § 2924l declarations are recognized in federal court, most district courts within this Circuit to have considered the matter have concluded that § 2924l declarations are not recognized by federal courts under Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), because § 2924l is a state procedural rule, not state substantive law. See Kennedy v. PLM Lender Servs., Inc., 2012 WL 1038632 at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. March 27, 2012); Bever v. Cal-Western Reconveyance Corp., 2012 WL 662336 at *1-4 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2012); Tran v. Washington Mutual, 2010 WL 520878 at *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb.11, 2010). As explained by these decisions, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a), which specifies the pleadings allowed in federal court, does not list a declaration of non-monetary status as one of them.
In cases where the trustee filed a declaration in non-monetary status prior to an action being removed to federal court, courts in this district have found the declaration to be operative and considered the trustee not to be a party to the litigation. See Tabula v. Washington Mutual Bank, No. C10-05819 HRL, 2011 WL 1302800, at *1, n.1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2011); Cabriales v. Aurora Loan Servs., No. C 10-161 MEJ, 2010 WL 761081, at * 1, n.1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2010); but c.f. Kennedy v. PLM Lender Servs., Inc., No. C 10-04942 WHA, 2012 WL 1038632, at *5-7 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2012) (concluding in an action that was initially filed in federal court that § 2924l declarations are not recognized in federal court under the Erie doctrine). OneWest did not answer the complaint.
Section 2924/ declarations are generally not valid in federal court proceedings. See Kennedy v. PLM Lender Services Inc., No. 10-CV-04942, 2012 WL 1038632 at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2012) (Alsup, J.). Instead, our parties have expressly agreed to be bound by the above terms.