FREDERICK J. MARTONE, District Judge.
The court has before it defendants Wells Fargo Bank, HSBC Bank, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.'s ("MERS") motion to dismiss (doc. 9), plaintiffs' response (doc. 22), and defendants' reply (doc. 24). We also have before us defendants' motion to dissolve temporary restraining order ("TRO") (doc. 14), plaintiffs' response (doc. 19), defendants' reply (doc. 21); and defendants' motion to expedite consideration of the motion to dissolve the TRO (doc. 27).
Plaintiffs purchased residential real property in August 2006 with a $952,483 loan secured by a Deed of Trust in favor of M&I Marshall & Ilsley Bank. The Deed of Trust appointed MERS as beneficiary and Lawyers Title of Arizona as trustee. Plaintiffs consented in the Deed of Trust to non-judicial foreclosure in the event of default. On April 7, 2010, MERS assigned the beneficial interest in the Deed of Trust to defendant HSBC Bank. The assignment was recorded on May 9, 2011.
Plaintiffs subsequently defaulted on their loan. On March 29, 2011, Michael A. Bosco, Jr. was substituted as trustee and a notice of trustee's sale was recorded. One day before the scheduled trustee's sale, plaintiffs obtained a TRO in state court, enjoining the sale. The case was then removed to this court.
Plaintiffs' complaint contains nine counts, all of which assert various iterations of three claims-(1) MERS is not a valid beneficiary under the Deed of Trust, and therefore lacked power to assign the Deed of Trust, (2) defendants cannot proceed with a non-judicial foreclosure without first producing the original Note, and (3) non-judicial foreclosure is precluded for defendants' failure to comply with the Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC").
When plaintiffs signed the Deed of Trust they expressly acknowledged that MERS "is acting solely as nominee for Lender and Lender's successors and assigns," and that "MERS is the beneficiary under this Security Instrument."
Similarly, plaintiffs' "show me the Note" and UCC claims fail to state cognizable claims for relief. The Arizona Supreme Court recently confirmed what has long been the holding of this court, as well as the Arizona Court of Appeals, that "Arizona's non-judicial foreclosure statutes do not require the beneficiary to prove its authority or `show the note' before the trustee may commence a non-judicial foreclosure."
We also grant defendants' motion to dissolve the TRO (doc. 14). Because plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a dissolution of the TRO is warranted.
The clerk shall enter final judgment.