
    Dena POPE, a married woman dealing in her sole and separate property, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AEGIS WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; U.S. Bank NA, not in its individual capacity but soley as: trustee of Certificate Holders of Maiden Lane Trust, Asset-Backed Securities 1, Series 2007; Nationstar Mortgage, LLC; Blackrock Financial Management Incorporated; Federal Reserve Bank of New York, a single member Delaware limited liability company; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-16413.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 14, 2014.
    
    Filed March 24, 2014.
    Donald O. Loeb, Donald O. Loeb PLC, Mesa, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Gregory B. Iannelli, Sean Keenan McElenney, Esquire, Bryan Cave LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: FISHER and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and QUIST, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Gordon J. Quist, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Dena Pope appeals from the district court’s dismissal of her first amended complaint for failure to state a claim in this action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. Appellees have moved to dismiss this appeal as moot because the trustee has now sold the property to an independent third party. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

Pope failed to obtain injunctive relief before the trustee’s sale of the property. Under Arizona law, she has now waived any defenses and objections to the sale. See Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 33-811(C) (defenses and objections to a trustee’s sale are waived if they are not raised in an action resulting in injunctive relief before the sale); BT Capital, LLC v. TD Serv. Co. of Ariz., 229 Ariz. 299, 275 P.3d 598, 600 (2012) (en banc) (“Where, as here, a trustee’s sale is completed, a person subject to § 33-811(C) cannot later challenge the sale based on pre-sale defenses or objections.”). In light of the foreclosure, the remedy Pope seeks in her first amended complaint is therefore moot. See Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa. v. Baker, 22 F.3d 880, 896 (9th Cir.1994) (a case is moot when there is no longer a present controversy as to which effective relief can be granted).

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.
     