
    Moss C. CABALLERO, suing individually, on behalf of the general public and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, a National Association; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 10-17818.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Feb. 13, 2012.
    Filed Feb. 15, 2012.
    Larry Wayne Gabriel, Esquire, Jenkins Mulligan & Gabriel, LLP, Woodland Hills, CA, Thomas A. Jenkins, Esquire, Daniel Joseph Mulligan, Jenkins Mulligan & Gabriel LLP, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Jan T. Chilton, Mark Joseph Kennedy, Severson & Werson, San Francisco, CA, Jan T. Chilton, Mark Joseph Kennedy, James Robert Evans, Jr., Esquire, Fulbright & Jaworski, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: GRABER, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Moss Caballero appeals from the district court’s dismissal on the pleadings of this diversity action against Defendants Bank of America, Federal National Mortgage Association, NDex West, LLC, and Does 1-100. Reviewing de novo the interpretation of state law, Lahoti v. Vericheck, Inc., 636 F.3d 501, 505 (9th Cir.2011), we affirm.

The district court correctly held that California Civil Code section 2932.5 does not apply to deeds of trust. After the district court issued its decision, the California Court of Appeal reached the same conclusion in a thorough and well-reasoned decision, and the California Supreme Court denied review. Calvo v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 199 Cal.App.4th 118, 130 Cal.Rptr.3d 815 (Ct.App.2011), rev. denied (Cal.S.Ct. Jan. 4, 2012). For the reasons stated in Calvo and the many district-court decisions that have reached the same conclusion, e.g., Roque v. Suntrust Mortg., Inc., No. 09-00040, 2010 WL 546896 (N.D.Cal.2010) (order), we find no “convincing evidence” that the California Supreme Court would hold that California Civil Code section 2932.5 applies to deeds of trust. See Hayes v. County of San Diego, 658 F.3d 867, 870 (9th Cir.2011) (order) (“In deciding an issue of state law, when there is relevant precedent from the state’s intermediate appellate court, the federal court must follow the state intermediate appellate court decision unless the federal court finds convincing evidence that the state’s supreme court likely would not follow it.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

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