
    Son T. NGUYEN and Hanh T. Nguyen, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-15268
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 6, 2016  San Francisco, California
    FILED OCTOBER 06, 2016
    Michael James Yesk, Esquire, Attorney, Yesk Law, Pleasant Hill, CA, Megan Dai-ley, Attorney, Law Ofc of Megan Dailey, Richmond, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants
    Mark Leonard Block, Esquire, Litigation Counsel, Wargo & French LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Joseph James Poppen, Attorney, Bryan Cave LLP, San Francisco, CA, Daniel T. Rockey, Holme Roberts & Owen LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SCHROEDER and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Appellants Son and Hanh Nguyen (the “Nguyens”) appeal the district court’s grant of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, which we review de novo. Mitchell v. Washington, 818 F.3d 436, 441 (9th Cir. 2016). Because the parties are familiar -with the factual and procedural history, we need not recount it here. We have jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We deferred submission of this case pending a decision of the California Supreme Court in Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp., 62 Cal.4th 919, 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 66, 365 P.3d 845 (2016). The Court has now issued its opinion, in which it held in relevant part that a borrower subject to a nonjudicial foreclosure has standing to sue on the basis of a void assignment regardless of whether the borrower was in default on the loan, but a borrower may not “attempt to preempt a threatened nonjudicial foreclosure by a suit questioning the foreclosing party’s right to proceed.” Id., 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 66, 365 P.3d at 848. This case involves the attempted preemption of a threatened nonjudicial foreclosure; therefore, under Yvanova, the Nguyens lack standing. Accordingly, the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See McSherry v. City of Long Beach, 584 F.3d 1129, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009) (noting that summary judgment may be sustained “on the basis of any ground supported by the record”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     