UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LARRY L. COX; RENEE M. COX, No. 13-15225 Plaintiffs-Appellees, D.C. No. v. 3:11-cv-00454- RCJ-WGC UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ORDER AND Defendant-Appellant. OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 6, 2015* San Francisco, California

Filed September 2, 2015

Before: Richard C. Tallman Milan D. Smith, Jr., and Mary H. Murguia, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam Opinion

* The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 COX V. USDA

SUMMARY**

Foreclosure / Jurisdiction

The panel redesignated the memorandum disposition, filed July 20, 2015, as a per curiam opinion in which the panel reversed the district court’s order remanding back to state court plaintiffs’ petition for an order modifying their rural housing loan, and remanded with instructions that the district court dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs defaulted on a rural housing loan granted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The USDA initiated foreclosure proceedings, and the plaintiffs elected to participate in Nevada’s Foreclosure Mediation Program. The mediator found that USDA did not participate in mediation in good faith, chiefly because USDA regulations prevented the agency from entertaining the loan modifications that the plaintiffs requested. Plaintiffs filed a petition in Nevada state court seeking a favorable loan modification and sanctions against the USDA, and USDA removed the plaintiffs’ petition to federal court.

The panel held that the Nevada state court lacked jurisdiction over the action because the record contained no evidence that USDA waived its sovereign immunity to the plaintiffs’ petition. The panel further held that under the derivative jurisdiction doctrine, the district court, accordingly, also lacked jurisdiction over the petition on removal. The

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. COX V. USDA 3 panel concluded that the district court was bound to dismiss the petition rather than remand to state court.

COUNSEL Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Karen L. Loeffler, United States Attorney, Mark B. Stern and John S. Koppel, Attorneys, Appellate Staff Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

ORDER

Defendant-Appellant U.S. Department of Agriculture’s request for publication, filed July 20, 2015, is GRANTED. The memorandum disposition filed July 13, 2015, is revised and redesignated a per curiam opinion.

OPINION PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs-Appellees Larry and Renee Cox defaulted on a rural housing loan granted by Defendant-Appellee U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”). When USDA initiated foreclosure proceedings, the Coxes elected to participate in Nevada’s Foreclosure Mediation Program. The mediator found that USDA did not participate in mediation in good 4 COX V. USDA faith, chiefly because USDA regulations prevented the agency from entertaining the loan modifications that the Coxes requested. The Coxes petitioned in state court for an order modi