N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT HELEN GALOPE, a

n individual, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. DEUTSC HE B ANK NATIONAL TR UST C OM PANY, a s Truste e unde r Pooling a nd Se rvic i ng Agre e m e nt da

te d a s of M ay

1, 2007 Se c uritiz e d

Asse t B a c ke d R e c e iva b le s LLC Trust 2007-B R4; W ESTER N PR OGR ESSIVE, LLC ; B AR C LAYS B ANK PLC ; B AR C LAYS C APITAL REAL ESTATE, INC ., DB A Hom e q Se rvic ing; OC W EN LOAN SER VIC ING, LLC ; DEUTSC HE B ANK AG, De fe nda

n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-55246 D.C . No. 8:12-c v-00323-C JC -R

NB M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia C orm a c J. C arne y , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm itte d Nove m be r 7, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# FIL ED DEC 14 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.B e fore : WARDLAW and B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s, a nd B ELL, ** Distric t Judge . He le n Ga lope a

ppe a ls the distric t

c o urt’ s pa

rtia l dism issa l a

nd pa rtia l sum m ary judgm e nt of he r a c t ion unde r the She rm an Antitrust Ac t a nd C a lifornia sta te la w a ga inst Appe lle e s De utsc h e B ank Na tiona l Trust C o. (“ DB NTC ” ), W e ste rn Progre ssive and Oc w e n Loa n Se rvic ing (c olle c tive ly

the “ DB NTC De fe nda nts” ); B arc l ay s B ank (“ B arc la y s ” ), B arc la

y s C a pita l R e a l Esta

te Inc . (“ B C R E I” ) (c olle c tive ly

the “ B arc l ay s De fe n da

nts” ), and De utsc he B a

n k AG (“ De utsc he B an k ” ). 1. The distric t c ourt did not err in holding tha t the DB NTC De fe nda

n ts’ a lle ge d viola

tion of C a lifornia

B usine ss a

nd Profe ssions C ode § 17200 e t se q (“ UC L” ) a

nd a lle g e d bre a c h of the im plie d c ove na

nt of good fa ith a

nd fa ir de a ling we re pre e m

pte d unde r the B ankruptc y

C ode . The se sta

te -law c la im s are ba se d on a lle ge d viola

tions of the a

u t om a tic sta

y , a nd a re the re fore pre e m

pte d. Se e MSR Ex ploration Ltd. v . Me ridian Oil, Inc
. , 74 F.3d 910, 913–14 (9th C i r. 1996). As to Ga lope ’ s fe de ra l c la im unde r 11 U.S.C . § 362(k), the distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d it be c a

use it c ould only

hav e be e n brought be fore the ba nkruptc y c ourt. Se e C .D. C a l . G.O. 13-05 (July 1, 2013); 28 U.S.C . § 157(a ).

* * The Honora

ble R obe rt Holm e s B e ll, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the W e ste rn Distric t of M i c higa n, sitting by

de signa t ion. 22. The distric t c ourt did not err in gra nting sum m ary judgm e n t on Ga lope ’ s antitrust c la im s a ga inst theB arc la y s De fe nda

nts, be c a u se Ga lope la c ke d a

n titrust sta nding. Ga lope a lle ge s tha t B arc la y s’ m a n ipula tion of theLIB OR

ra t e injure d he r by c a using he r to purc ha se a

loa n produc t tha

t she othe rwise would not ha ve . Howe ve r, she fa ile d to e s ta blish tha t she m a de any

pa y m e nts on he r loa

n tha t we re linke d to LIB OR . Any

injury tha t she m ay have suffe re d wa s the re fore too indire c t and spe c u lative t o c onfe r antitrust sta nding. Se e Amare l v . C

onne ll , 102 F.3d 1494, 1507 (9th C ir. 1996). 3. Nor did thedistric t c ourt e rr in gra nting sum m ary judgm e nt on Ga lope ’ s sta te -law c la im s a g a inst theB arc la y s De fe nda

nts. C la im s unde r C a lifornia ’ s UC L and Fa lse Adve rtising La

w (“ FAL” ), C a l. B us. & Prof. C ode § 17500 e t se q. , c annot be pre dic a te d on vic a rious lia bility . Pe rfe c t 10, Inc . v . Visa Int’l Se r v . Ass’n , 494 F.3d 788, 808 (9th C ir. 2007). R a the r, “ [a ] de fe nda nt’ s lia bility m ust be ba se d on his pe rsona l pa

rtic ipat ion in theunla

wful pra c tic e s an d

unbridle d c ontrol ove r the pra c tic e s tha

t a re found to viola

te [the se sta

tute s] .” Id. (quoting Eme ry v . Visa Int’l Se rv . Ass’n 95 C a l. App. 4th 952, 960 (2002)). Ga lope purc ha s e d he r loa n from Ne wC e ntury , a

nd de a lt e xc lusive ly

with Ne w C e ntury

during the loa

n-origina tion proc e ss. B arc la

y s ha d no involve m e nt until a t le a st four m onths la

te r, whe n the loa

n wa s sold into the

trust, a nd B C R EI 3be c am e the de s igna t e d se rvic e r. B e c a

u se lia b ility c an be ba se d on only

pe rsona l pa rtic i pation in unla

wful a c tivity , the B arc la

y s De fe nda

nts we re e n title d to sum m ary judgm e nt on the s e c la im s. 4. Sim ila rly , Ga lope c annot a

ttribute any

de c e ptive sta

te m e nts to the B arc la y s De fe n d ants during the

loa n origina tion proc e ss to m a inta i n a c a use of a c tion for fra

ud. Se e Minn. Mut. Life

Ins. C o . v . Ensle

y , 174 F.3d 977, 982 (9th C ir. 1999). Thus, sum

m ary judgm e nt wa s a lso a

ppropria te for this c la im . 5. The distric t c ourt did not err in ruling in fa v or of the B arc la

y s De fe nda

nts on Ga lope ’ s c la im

for bre a c h

of C a lifornia ’ s im

p lie d c ove na nt of good fa ith a

nd fa ir de a ling. The pa

rtie s m u st ha ve a c ontra c tua l re lationship a s a pre re quisite for this c la im . J

e n k ins v . J P Morgan C

haseBank

, N .A. 216 C a l. App. 4th 497, 525 (2013). Ga lope argue s tha t she wa s obliga

te d to m ake m o n thly

m o rtga ge pa

ym e nts to a subsidia

ry of B arc la y s, whic h e sta

blishe d a c ontra c tua l re l a tionship be twe e n Ga lope an d B arc la

y s. B u t the re is no c ontra c tua l re l a tionship be twe e n a m o rtga gor and a loa n se rvic e r. S

e e , e .g., Re e d v . US Bank N .A. , No. 14-c v-05437-VC , 2015 W L 5042244, a

t *3 (N.D. C a l. Aug. 25, 2015) (“ [A] s the loa n se rvic e r, [de fe nda

nt] wa s ne ve r a

pa rty to the de e d

of trust.” ); H

ow ard v
. First Horizon Home Loan C orp ., No. 12-c v-05735-JST, 2013 W L 3146792, a

t *3 (N.D. C a l. June 18, 2013) (dism i ssing pla intiff’ s im

plie d c ove na

nt c la im be c a

use a c ontra c tua l “ re lationship 4doe s not e xist[] on the ba sis tha t [de fe nda nt] a c te d a s a loa n se rvic e r or a s a

n a ge nt for [le nde r] in c onne c tion with the de e d of trust” ). The re fore , the re wa s no c ontra c tua l re lat ionship be twe e n the two pa rtie s , a nd sum m ary judgm e nt wa s a ppropria te . 6. La stly , the distric t c ourt did not err in finding tha t it la c ke d pe rsona l jurisdic tion a s to De utsc h e B ank. Ga lope argue s tha t, be c a use she ra ise d a

ntitrust c la im s in he r c o m

pla i nt, the distric t c ourt should ha v e a pplie d a nationwide c onta c ts a na ly sis unde r 15 U.S.C . § 22. S e e Go-Vide o Inc . v . Ak

ai Ele c . C o ., Ltd. , 885 F.2d 1406, 1415 (9th C ir. 1988). B ut Ga lope la c ks sta nding to bring he

r antitrust c la im s a ga inst De utsc h e B ank for the sa m e re a s on she la c ks sta

nding a ga inst B arc la

y s: a ny injury she suffe re d wa s too indire c t a nd spe c u lative to c onfe r antitrust sta

nding. Se e Amare l , 102 F.3d a t 1507. The re fore , the nat ionwide c onta c ts te s t unde r § 22 doe s not a pply . M ore ove r, the distric t c o urt did not a

buse its disc re t ion in de ny ing le ave to a m e nd the c om

p la int, be c a

use it wa s “ c le ar that the c om pla i nt c ould not besa

ve d by any am e ndm e nt.” Se e Harris v . Amge n , 573 F.3d 728, 737 (9th C ir. 2009). AFFIRM E D.

5