NO T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
GAR Y FR ANC IS LOW R

Y, husba nd a nd M ARIAN C AR OL, wife ,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. EM C M OR TGAGE C ORPOR ATION; e t a l., De fe nda

nts-Appe lle e s. Nos. 13-15598 15-15964 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-08177-JAT
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Jam e s A. Te ilborg, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 24, 2018 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, LEAVY, a nd SILVER

M AN, C irc uit Judge s. Gary Fran c is Lowry

and M aria

n C a rol a ppe a l pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of the ir a c tion a lle ging sta te and fe de ra l c la im s a

rising from

de fe nda nts’ fa ilure to gra

nt the m a pe rm an e nt loa

n m odific ation. W e have jurisdic tion under



# FIL ED
JAN 26 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo. Zadrozny v . Bank of N e w York Me llon , 720 F.3d 1163, 1167 (9th C ir. 2013). W e a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d the c l a im

for bre a c h of c ontra c t be c a use pla intiffs fa ile d

to ide ntify

a c ontra c t provision re q

uiring de fe n da

nts to grant the m

a pe rm an e nt loa

n m odific ation or to c onside r the inc om e of the ir spiritua l re tre at

c e nte r in e va luating the ir qua lific at ions for suc h a m odific ation. Se eC onte mpo C

ontr. C o. v . Mountain State

s Te l. & Te l. C

o. , 736 P.2d 13, 15 (Ariz
. C t. App. 1987) (e le m e nts of a bre a c h of c ontra c t

c la im unde r Ariz ona

la w). The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d the c l a im

a lle ging viola

tions of Home Afforda ble M ortga ge Program

(“ HAM P” ) re quire m e nts be c a use pla i ntiffs fa ile d to
a lle ge fa c ts showing tha

t de fe nda nts we re obliga

te d to the m unde r HAM P. C f. C orv e llo v

. W

e lls Fargo Bank

, N A , 728 F.3d 878, 883 (9th C i r. 2013) (pe r c uriam ) (holding tha

t a loa n se rvic e r wa s c ontra c tua l ly obliga te d unde r the te rm s of a HAM P tria l pe riod pla

n (“ TPP” ) to borrowe rs who ha d c om plie d with thete rm s of the T PP). The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d the c l a im

a lle ging viola

tions of c onse nt de c re e s be c a

use pla intiffs fa ile d

to a lle g e fa c ts showing tha t the y ha d sta n ding to
e nforc e those de c re e s. Se e U .S. v . FMC

C orp. , 531 F.3d 813, 820 (9th C ir. 2008) (inc ide nta l be ne fic ia

rie s of a c onse nt de c re e la c k sta

nding to enforc e it).
2The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d the c l a im

a lle ging viola

tions of the Ariz ona C onsum e r Fraud Ac t be c a use pla intiffs fa ile d to a l le ge fa c ts showing tha t de fe nda nts m a de a

fa l se prom ise or m isre p re se ntat ion tha t injure d the m . Se e Dunlap v . J

immy GMC of Tuc son, Inc
. , 666 P.2d 83, 87 (Ariz . C t . App. 1983) (e le m e nts of a

c l a im unde r the Ariz ona

C onsum e r Frau d Ac t). The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d the c l a im

pre m ise d on thesa le or transfe r of the note to a

suc c e ssor truste e be c a

use the te rm s of the de e d of trust fore c lose suc h a

c la i m . Se e Zadrozny , 720 F.3d a t 1168 (so holding base d on sim ila r te rm s in a

de e d of trust). The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d the c l a im

a lle ging viola

tions of theFa ir De bt C olle c tion Pra c tic e s Ac t (“ FDC A” ) be c a use pla intiffs fa i le d to a l le ge fa c ts showing tha

t de fe nda nts a re de b t c olle c tors for purpose s of the FDC A. S e e De Dios v . Int’l Re alty

& Inv s. , 641 F.3d 1071, 1073-74, 1074 n.3 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ lia bility unde r the [FDC A] re quire s tha t the de fe nda

nt be a ‘ de bt c olle c tor’ ” ;

“ de bt c olle c tor doe s not inc lude those m ortga ge se rvic e c om pa nie s a nd othe rs who
se rvic e outsta

nding deb ts for othe rs, so long a s the de bts we re not in de fa ult whe n take n for se rvic ing” (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)). The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d the c l a im

for prom issory

e stoppe l be c a use pla intiffs fa ile d

to a lle ge fa c ts showing tha t de fe nda nts m a de a

prom ise on
3whic h the y

re lie d to the ir de trim e nt. Se e C onte mpo C

o ntr. C o. , 736 P.2d a

t 16 (e le m e nts of a

prom issory e s toppe l c la im unde r Ariz o na

la w). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in c onditioning its gra nt of a sta y pe nding a

ppe a l on a

bond in the

am ount of $2,000 per m onth. Se eBurlington N . R.R. C o. v . W oods , 480 U.S. 1, 7 n.5 (1987) (fe de ra l c ourts m ay se t the am ount of se c urity

in the ir disc re tion). The distric t c ourt prope rly de nie d a s m oot pla i ntiffs’ m otion for a pre l im ina ry injunc tion. De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s ’ re que st for judic ia l notic e (Dkt. No. 19) is den ie d. AFFIRM E D.

4