Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

Case: 15-35963, 07/24/2017, ID: 10518935, DktEntry: 62, Page 1 of 8

No. 15-35963
IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LNV CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.

DENISE SUBRAMANIAM,
Defendant-Appellant.

On Appeal from the United States District Court


for the District of Oregon, 14-CV-01836-MO
District Judge Michael Mosman

LNV CORPORATIONS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO APPELLANTS


MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD ON APPEAL

GABRIELLE D. RICHARDS ERICK J. HAYNIE


MARTIN & RICHARDS, LLP PERKINS COIE LLP
111 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 3150 1120 NW Couch St., 10th Floor
Portland, OR 97204 Portland, OR 97209
503.444.3449 503.727.2000
gabby@cascadialawyers.com ehaynie@perkinscoie.com

Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee


LNV Corporation LNV Corporation

July 24, 2017


Case: 15-35963, 07/24/2017, ID: 10518935, DktEntry: 62, Page 2 of 8

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Plaintiff-Appellee LNV Corporation (LNV) is a Nevada corporation and a

wholly owned subsidiary of Beal Bank USA, a Nevada thrift. Beal Bank USA is

wholly owned by Beal Financial Corporation, a Texas corporation. Beal Bank

USA and Beal Financial Corporation are not publicly traded corporations.

I. INTRODUCTION

The latest motion filed by Defendant-Appellant Denise Subramaniam (the

Appellant) purportedly seeks to supplement the record on appeal. Appellants

motion, however, is nothing more than an attempt to slander LNV, its executives,

its attorneys and the judge who presided over this case below in a desperate effort

to influence this Courts decision. The motion is a classic example of how

Appellant has conducted herself throughout this litigation and the three prior

lawsuits Appellant filed against LNV and/or its affiliates.1 As with the vast

majority of her other pleadings, the current motion has no legal basis. It misleads

the Court. It distorts the record. It contains no facts that are based in reality. Its

content is intended to distract and deceive, to contort the truth and the law.

1
LNV briefly discussed the three prior lawsuits in its Answering Brief, Dkt. 33,
pgs. 1-2. LNV notes that Appellants frivolous filings became so problematic at
the District Court level that Chief Judge Mosman sua sponte imposed a pre-filing
restriction on Appellant that applies to all cases in which she is or may become a
litigant. Subramaniam v. Beal, et al., No. 3:15-cv-02002-MO (D. Or.), Dkt. 8.
Case: 15-35963, 07/24/2017, ID: 10518935, DktEntry: 62, Page 3 of 8

To be clear, the subject of this appeal is the District Courts order granting

summary judgment to LNV, the holder of the Note and beneficiary of the Deed of

Trust. This appeal does not concern any of the lower courts evidentiary rulings,

which Appellant addresses at length in her motion in an attempt to re-litigate those

issues. Nor does this case concern cease-and-desist letters, the political affiliations

of LNV executives, Russia, Donald Trump, racketeering or the myriad of other

ridiculous things referenced by Appellant in her motion and the exhibits thereto.

Appellant is so intent on directing the Courts attention away from the facts and the

law that she spends nearly her entire motion attempting to cast LNV in a bad light,

even suggesting that an LNV executive may hire someone to kill her. (She

previously alleged that the same executive was stalking her. 2)

Appellant offers no new evidence in her motion. Rather, the evidence

she submits is a zoomed in portion of the Deed of Trust, which has been

available to Appellant since at least November 2014.3 Moreover, her contention

that the Deed of Trust was forged was not argued below, having been raised for the

2
Subramaniam v. Beal, No. 3:14-cv-01482-SI (D. Or.).
3
Appellant has acknowledged the authenticity of the Deed of Trust since the
inception of this case, stating in her Answer that the copy of the Deed of Trust . . .
filed in the county and attached to Plaintiffs Exhibit 2 appears to match the one I
was given at closing. (Dkt. 18, Def.s Resp. to LNVs Am. Compl., pg. 2.)
Appellant also has maintained that she signed the Note and Deed of Trust under
duress and that the lender Peoples Choice switched out the Note to one that
included a higher interest rate. (Id. at 3-4.)
Case: 15-35963, 07/24/2017, ID: 10518935, DktEntry: 62, Page 4 of 8

first time in her Opening Brief. There is no legal basis that permits Appellant to

supplement the record in this way. The motion should be denied.

II. ARGUMENT

A. There Is No Legal Basis for Appellants Motion

Appellant cites no legal basis that allows her to supplement the record on

appeal with purported new evidence of forgery. Appellant cites Federal

Appellate Rule 402 as the basis for her motion. There is no such rule. Appellant

likely is referring to Federal Rule of Evidence 402, which governs the admissibility

of relevant evidence at the trial court level and has no bearing on whether a party

may supplement the record on appeal. There is no Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure or Ninth Circuit Rule that permits Appellant to supplement the record

on appeal with new evidence that was not presented to the District Court. In

fact, the introduction of new evidence on appeal contradicts the basic tenant of

appellate jurisprudence . . . that parties may not unilaterally supplement the record

on appeal with evidence not reviewed by the court below. Tonry v. Security

Experts, 20 F.3d 967, 974 (9th Cir. 1994).

B. Appellant Mischaracterizes the Nature of the Evidence

Appellant misleads the Court by referring to the evidence she presents in

her motion as being new. The new evidence Appellant cites in her motion is

nothing more than further elaboration on an argument that she made in her
Case: 15-35963, 07/24/2017, ID: 10518935, DktEntry: 62, Page 5 of 8

Opening Brief to this Court, i.e. that her signature and/or initials on the Deed of

Trust were forged. (Dkt. 29, Opening Br., 22-23.) The only thing new about

Appellants argument is that, on the advice of an unidentified investigator,

Appellant zoomed in on portions of the Deed of Trust and identified what she

believes are characteristics of a forged document. This is not new evidence.

As Appellant admitted in her Opening Brief, she has had access to the Deed

of Trust since November 2014 when the document was first filed with the

District Court as an exhibit to the foreclosure Complaint. (Id.) Nevertheless,

Appellant did not argue below that the Deed of Trust was forged a fact to which

she also readily admitted in her Opening Brief. (Id.) Appellant has had ample

opportunity to have the Deed of Trust examined by an expert or, at minimum, to

construct an argument with something more than conjecture. Appellant cannot re-

litigate this case on appeal with conjured new evidence simply because she

zoomed in on a document she has had for three years and found anomalies that

exist only in her digital reproductions. Just as there is no legal basis to supplement

the record with new evidence, there is no authority that allows Appellant to

augment her briefing six months after briefing closed in this matter.

Appellant misleads the Court in other ways as well. In just one example,

Appellant cites a Washington case in which, she says, the judge determined Beal

[Bank] had altered a Note to make it appear [that the borrower] signed when she
Case: 15-35963, 07/24/2017, ID: 10518935, DktEntry: 62, Page 6 of 8

had not. Appellant, however, fails to reveal that the language she cites is from the

appellants brief and not from an opinion or order issued by a court. Beal Bank,

SSB v. Sarich, 161 Wash. 2d 544, 545, 167 P.3d 555 (2007), Dkt. 95, at 3. Further,

she mischaracterizes the legal issues involved in that case, i.e. whether a non-

judicial foreclosure of a senior lien-holders deed of trust precludes a junior lien-

holders action on the Note. Id. at 555. Whether the Note in that case was altered

was never at issue, as evidenced by the fact that the Washington Supreme Court

ruled in favor of Beal Bank and found it could enforce its rights in the Note. Id.

C. Appellants Arguments Make No Logical Sense

Aside from the lack of a legal basis for her motion and the mischaracterized

nature of the evidence, Appellants motion should be denied because it makes no

logical sense. LNV reminds this Court that Appellant refinanced her mortgage

with Peoples Choice in 2004. (Dkt. 33, Answering Br., 4-6.) The Deed of Trust

was not assigned to LNV until 2008. (Id.) Appellant has not produced a Deed of

Trust document that differs in any way from the one filed in this case that she now

claims was forged, nor does she even explain how the allegedly forged Deed of

Trust differs from the one she admits she signed in 2004. (SER, 77.) Moreover,

Appellant offers no explanation as to how LNV could have forged a document that

was recorded by Peoples Choice in the county land records four years before it

was assigned to LNV and 10 years prior to the commencement of this case.
Case: 15-35963, 07/24/2017, ID: 10518935, DktEntry: 62, Page 7 of 8

At the District Court level, Appellant alleged that the Note and its allonges

were forged. That argument went nowhere. Appellant now has latched on to a

different theory that, incredibly, is even more implausible. Appellant lodges

serious allegations of criminal wrongdoing but offers nothing to substantiate her

claims aside from her own observations, which are obviously influenced by her

unrelenting desire to drag LNV, its attorneys, its executives and Chief Judge

Mosman through the mud. There simply is no truth or any sense to her claims.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, LNV respectfully requests that the Court

deny the Appellants motion to supplement the record on appeal.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 24th day of July, 2017.

/s/ Gabrielle D. Richards /s/ Erick J. Haynie


GABRIELLE D. RICHARDS ERICK J. HAYNIE
MARTIN & RICHARDS, LLP PERKINS COIE LLP
111 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 3150 1120 NW Couch St., 10th Floor
Portland, OR 97204 Portland, OR 97209
503.444.3449 503.727.2000
gabby@cascadialawyers.com ehaynie@perkinscoie.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee


LNV Corporation
Case: 15-35963, 07/24/2017, ID: 10518935, DktEntry: 62, Page 8 of 8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I served the foregoing LNV CORPORATIONS RESPONSE


IN OPPOSITION TO APPELLANTS MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE
RECORD ON APPEAL on Defendant-Appellant Denise Subramaniam
electronically through the ECF system on the date set forth below.

DATED: July 24, 2017 /s/ Gabrielle D. Richards


Gabrielle D. Richards
gabby@cascadialawyers.com