
    BIG BLUE CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC, an Ohio limited liability company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RECONTRUST COMPANY, NA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-35603.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted May 14, 2014.
    Filed June 11, 2014.
    Jeffrey A. Long, Lake Oswego, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Steven Andrew Ellis, Goodwin Procter Lip, Los Angeles, CA, Peter D. Hawkes, Esquire, Pilar Cortwright French, Esquire, Kristen L. Tranetzki, Lane Powell PC, Portland, OR, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
    Before: TASHIMA, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

The district court dismissed the complaint filed by Big Blue Capital Partners, which alleged that ReeonTrust Company failed to follow Oregon law when it initiated nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings against property now owned by Big Blue. Because ReeonTrust rescinded the notice of default, effectively abandoning the foreclosure proceedings, Defendants contend this appeal is moot. We agree with Defendants and dismiss the appeal. See Vegas Diamond Props., LLC v. FDIC, 669 F.3d 933, 936-37 (9th Cir.2012).

Big Blue does not dispute that Reeon-Trust rescinded the notice of default. Instead, Big Blue argues that the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to mootness applies. See id. However, this exception “applies only where the named plaintiff can make a reasonable showing that he will again be subjected to the alleged illegality.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Big Blue has not made this showing.

After ReeonTrust rescinded the notice of default, the Oregon Supreme Court substantiated allegations in Big Blue’s complaint by holding that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) may not qualify as a trust deed’s beneficiary under Oregon law. See Brandrup v. ReconTrust Co., N.A., 353 Or. 668, 303 P.3d 301, 312 (2013). Defendants acknowledge the effect of this ruling, and we may therefore conclude that plaintiffs will not again be subjected to a foreclosure based on a notice of default that is issued by a trustee that is appointed by MERS acting as beneficiary under a deed of trust. See Vegas Diamond Props., 669 F.3d at 937.

The district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss is vacated. See ACLU of Nev. v. Masto, 670 F.3d 1046, 1065 (9th Cir.2012).

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     