Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00219/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00219-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

– 1 – 17-cv-0219 DMS (RBB)

1 

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY L. HINRICHSEN and 

DEBORAH A. HINRICHSEN,

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 17-cv-0219 DMS (RBB)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO DISMISS

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. ET 

AL.,

Defendants.

Pending before the Court is Defendant MTC Financial, Inc. dba Trustee Corps

(“MTC”)’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Rodney L. Hinrichsen and Deborah A. 

Hinrichsen’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Plaintiffs filed an opposition, and 

MTC filed a reply. For the reasons set forth below, MTC’s motion is granted.

On May 9, 2017, this Court issued an order granting in part and denying in 

part MTC and Bank of America, N.A. (“BofA”)’s motions to dismiss.1 On May 22, 

2017, Plaintiffs filed a FAC, alleging the following three claims: (1) violation of the 

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6), (2) violation 

of Cal. Civil Code § 2924.17, and (3) cancellation of instruments. Subsequently, on 

 1 The Court issued an amended order on July 14, 2017.

Case 3:17-cv-00219-DMS-RBB Document 32 Filed 08/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
– 2 – 17-cv-0219 DMS (RBB)

1 

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

June 8, 2017, MTC filed present motion. Specifically, MTC moves to dismiss

Plaintiffs’ second claim under § 2924.17, arguing § 2924.17 only applies to 

mortgage servicers, not trustees, and MTC is statutorily immune from liability 

pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 2924(d).

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests 

the legal sufficiency of the claims asserted in the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); 

Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 731 (9th Cir. 2001). To determine whether 

dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper, the Court must accept as true Plaintiffs’ 

nonconclusory factual allegations, construe all reasonable inferences in favor of 

Plaintiffs, and consider in that light whether the facts are sufficient to state a claim 

for relief that is plausible on its face. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

In their second claim, Plaintiffs allege MTC and BofA violated § 2924.17 

based on their recording of the notice of default and notice of trustee’s sale.

2 (See 

FAC ¶¶ 14–15, 30.) Section 2924.17(b) provides, “Before recording or filing any 

of the documents described in subdivision (a), a mortgage servicer shall ensure that 

it has reviewed competent and reliable evidence to substantiate the borrower’s 

default and the right to foreclose, including the borrower's loan status and loan 

information.” Cal. Civ. Code § 2924.17(b) (italics added). Section 2924.17 “applies 

to a mortgage servicer, which is defined in § 2920.5 to specifically exclude a 

trustee.”3 Dahnken v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, No. 4:13-cv-02838-PJH, 2017 WL 

3049552, at *2 (9th Cir. 2017); McKinney v. Citi Residential Lending Inc., No. 

15CV307-MMA (WVG), 2015 WL 11822150, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2015)

(“California Civil Code § 2924.17 only applies to mortgage servicers”). Plaintiffs 

have alleged MTC is a “foreclosure trustee,” not a mortgage servicer.4 (FAC ¶ 3.) 

 2 Records show these notices were issued by MTC, not BofA.

3 Section 2920.5 expressly states, “‘Mortgage servicer’ shall not include a trustee, or 

a trustee's authorized agent, acting under a power of sale pursuant to a deed of trust.” 

Cal. Civ. Code § 2920.5(a)

4 Plaintiffs also refer to MTC as a “debt collector.” (FAC ¶ 21.) However, debt 

Case 3:17-cv-00219-DMS-RBB Document 32 Filed 08/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
– 3 – 17-cv-0219 DMS (RBB)

1 

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Because there is nothing in the record to suggest MTC is a mortgage servicer, 

Plaintiffs cannot state a claim against MTC. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed 

with prejudice as to MTC.5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 10, 2017

 

collectors are not subject to § 2924.17 either. See McKinney, 2015 WL 11822150,

at *6 n.13.

5 Because MTC’s motion is granted, the Court declines to address its remaining 

arguments. The Court denies MTC’s request for judicial notice because the 

documents contained therein were not necessary to decide the present motion.

Case 3:17-cv-00219-DMS-RBB Document 32 Filed 08/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3