§ 28:3203(b)). Thus, the rights vested in MERS could be and were transferred by valid assignment to Bank of America. See Compl., Ex. 2. Those rights were then transferred by valid assignment to HSBC as Trustee for Deutsche Bank. Compl., Ex. 3. Therefore, Duffy is not entitled to either a declaration that the Assignments of the Deed are void or a declaration “that none of the Defendants has any interest in his property.” Opp’n at 1, 8. None of Duffy’s additional arguments in any way affect the rights of Bank of America, acting on behalf of HSBC, to exercise the power-of-sale clause in the Deed. First, Duffy is incorrect that District of Columbia law requires a foreclosing institution to be the holder of the underlying Note. See Diaby v. Bierman, 795 F.Supp.2d 108, 113 (D.D.C.2011) (<HOLDING>). The District of Columbia is a non-judicial
holding that a motion to intervene is not dispositive of a claim or defense of a party holding that whether or not defendants are holders of the note is not dispositive as to whether they have standing to foreclose on the property holding that test for whether two offenses are not the same is whether each offense requires proof of a fact that the other does not holding that a trustee does not have standing to sue a thirdparty on behalf of debenture holders holding that where one plaintiff has standing we need not consider whether the other individual and corporate plaintiffs have standing to maintain the suit