Case ID: f-appx_576/html/0707-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Shadrack S. GOAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MCT GROUP; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-55615.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2014.
    
    Filed May 29, 2014.
    Robert L. Hyde, Esquire, Joshua Swi-gart, Hyde & Swigart, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Robert Lawrence Susnow, Law Offices of Robert L. Susnow APC, Beverly Hills, CA, Tim Jude Vanden Heuvel, Lewis Bris-bois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Negin A. Demehry, Mark Hubert Nys, Esquire, Kli-nedinst P.C., San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Shadrack S. Goad appeals from the district court’s judgment on the pleadings in his action alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“RFDCPA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. MacDonald v. Grace Church Seattle, 457 F.3d 1079, 1081 (9th Cir.2006). We affirm.

The district court properly granted judgment on the pleadings because the Bankruptcy Code precludes Goad’s claims. See Walls v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 276 F.3d 502, 504, 510-11 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that a discharged debtor may not bring a claim under the FDCPA regarding violation of a bankruptcy discharge injunction because it would “circumvent the Bankruptcy Code’s remedial scheme”); see also Cal. Civ.Code § 1788.17 (the RFDCPA’s incorporation by reference of the FDCPA).

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

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