The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed a Nevada federal district court's dismissal of claims brought by James White and Jean White against Prestige Default Services, LLC in a case involving foreclosure proceedings on Las Vegas real estate.
The appeals court issued its decision as an unpublished memorandum on Jan. 12, 2026, in *White v. Prestige Default Services, LLC* (9th Cir. 2026). The three-judge panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Stephen S. Hawkins, Johnnie B. Rawlinson, and Morgan Christen, unanimously concluded the case was suitable for decision without oral arguments.
The case originated from a 2019 real estate transaction in which the Whites executed a promissory note with Pinnacle Lending Group, Inc. to purchase property in Las Vegas. The promissory note was secured by a deed of trust naming Premium Title as the trustee.
The legal dispute centers on events that occurred in July 2021 during foreclosure proceedings. On July 7, 2021, a Substitution of Trustee document was executed, replacing Premium Title with Prestige Default Services as the trustee under the deed of trust. One week later, on July 14, 2021, Prestige executed a Notice of Breach and Default and of Election to Cause Sale of Real Property Under Deed of Trust.
According to the court documents, a critical timing issue arose during these proceedings. When Prestige executed the notice of default on July 14, Premium Title remained the official trustee under the deed of trust because the substitution document had not yet been recorded with county authorities. The substitution of trustee was not recorded until the following day, July 15, 2021, as Instrument Number 20210715-0002078. The notice of default was also recorded on July 15.
The Whites filed their original lawsuit in 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada under case number 2:22-cv-00133-ART-BNW. District Judge Anne R. Traum presided over the proceedings. The plaintiffs challenged the foreclosure proceedings, likely arguing that Prestige lacked authority to issue the notice of default while Premium Title remained the recorded trustee.
The district court granted Prestige's motion to dismiss the case. The Whites subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration, which the district court granted in part and denied in part. Unsatisfied with these rulings, the Whites appealed to the Ninth Circuit under the court's jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, which governs appeals from final decisions of district courts.
The Ninth Circuit's decision to affirm means the appeals court agreed with the district court's conclusion that the Whites' claims should be dismissed. However, because the decision was issued as an unpublished memorandum marked "NOT FOR PUBLICATION," it carries no precedential value for future cases, as specified in Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The case illustrates the technical complexities that can arise in foreclosure proceedings, particularly regarding the proper timing and recording of trustee substitutions. Real estate law requires precise adherence to procedural requirements, and even minor timing discrepancies can become grounds for legal challenges.
Foreclosure cases have become increasingly common in federal courts as borrowers seek to challenge allegedly improper procedures by lenders and their agents. Consumer protection advocates often argue that technical violations of foreclosure procedures should invalidate sales, while lending industry representatives contend that minor procedural irregularities should not prevent legitimate foreclosures when borrowers are in default.
The involvement of Prestige Default Services, a company that specializes in foreclosure proceedings as a substitute trustee, reflects the specialized nature of the modern foreclosure industry. These companies are typically hired by lenders to handle the complex legal and administrative requirements of foreclosure proceedings.
The Whites' case was submitted to the appeals court on Jan. 5, 2026, and decided within one week, indicating the court viewed the legal issues as relatively straightforward. The rapid resolution and decision to proceed without oral arguments suggests the panel found no merit in the appellants' arguments challenging the district court's dismissal.
The affirmance leaves the Whites without further recourse in federal court unless they can successfully petition for rehearing or seek review by the Supreme Court, though such petitions face long odds given the case's procedural nature and unpublished status.
This decision adds to the body of Ninth Circuit precedent regarding foreclosure proceedings, though its unpublished nature limits its broader impact on future litigation. The case serves as a reminder that technical compliance with recording requirements and trustee authorities remains crucial in foreclosure proceedings throughout the circuit's jurisdiction.