Ronald Shepherd, on Behalf of and All in the State of Arizona Similarly Situated Rollin Barkley, on Behalf of and All in the State of Arizona Similarly Situated Robert A. Bricker Marion Rodgers v. Edward J. Derwinski, Administrator of the Veterans' Administration, United States of America v. Rollin Barkley Ronald Shepherd Robert A. Bricker Marion Rodgers
Opinion
961 F.2d 132
Ronald SHEPHERD, on behalf of; and all in the State of Arizona similarly situated; Rollin Barkley, on behalf of; and all in the State of Arizona similarly situated; Robert A. Bricker; Marion Rodgers, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Edward J. DERWINSKI, Administrator of the Veterans' Administration, Defendant-Appellee. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rollin BARKLEY; Ronald Shepherd; Robert A. Bricker; Marion Rodgers, Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 90-15911, 90-16670.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Dec. 10, 1991. Decided April 1, 1992.
James M. Ackerman, Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, Phoenix, Ariz., for appellants.
Malcolm L. Stewart, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona; Roger G. Strand, District Judge, Presiding.
Before: NORRIS, BEEZER, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
1
In this appeal, we decide whether the Arizona anti-deficiency law is preempted by Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) regulations that authorize the VA to collect deficiencies on VA-guaranteed home loans. Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. §§ 33-729 A, 33-814 G. Because the Arizona anti-deficiency law at issue here is identical to the Oregon anti-deficiency law we considered in Connelly v. Derwinski, 961 F.2d 129, 130 (9th Cir.1992), we hold, on the basis of that opinion, that Arizona's anti-deficiency law is preempted by 38 C.F.R. § 36.4323 (e). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's summary judgment awarded to the Secretary of Veteran Affairs.
2
In a separate unpublished memorandum disposition, we also affirm the summary judgment against Barkley, who raised issues particular to his case.
3
AFFIRMED.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 0 cases
No case in this database cites this case.