N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT HCIRCUIT
SE AN M I CH AE L PARK , pr o se ; M ICH E L L E PARK ,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. L E H M A N B R O T H E RS B ANK , FSB ; M O RT G AG E E L E CT RO NIC RE G IST RAT IO N SYST E M S, INC.; AURO RA L O AN SE RV ICE S,

De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 11-55473 D.C . No. 3:10-c v-02692-IEG-WVG
M E M O RANDUM *

SE AN M I CH AE L PARK , pr o se ; M ICH E L L E PARK ,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. Q UAL IT Y L O AN SE RV ICE CO R PO RAT IO N,

De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 12-56450 D.C . No. 3:10-c v-02692-IEG-R

B B 

# FIL ED AUG 03 2017 M O LLYC. 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.pa ge 2 Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Irm a E. Gonz a le z , Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm itte d June 5, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : K O Z INSKI and CAL L AH AN , C irc uit Judge s , a nd K O RM AN , ** Distric t Judge
. 1. R e s judic ata

“ ba rs . . . a ny c la i m s tha

t we re ra ise d or c ould ha

ve be e n
ra ise d in the prior a c tion.” Owe ns v. Ka ise r Found. He a lth Pla n, Inc ., 244 F.3d 708, 713 (9th C ir. 2001) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

t ion m arks om itte d). The re fore , the Parks’ c la im unde r the Fa ir De bt C olle c t ion Pra c tic e s Ac t (FDC PA) survive s re s judic ata

only to the e xte nt it is ba se d on a lle gations re lating to the Oc tobe r 2010 notic e of sa l e , whic h c ouldn’ t ha ve be e n ra ise d in theParks’ August 2010 c om pla int.
2. M ortga ge Ele c tronic R e gistra tion Sy ste m s, Inc . (M ER S), the nom ina l be ne fic ia ry of the m ortga ge , is not in a “ busine ss the princ ipa l purpose of whic h is the c olle c tion of a

ny de bts,” nor is it a

n e ntity tha t “ re gula rly c o lle c ts or a

tte m pts to
c olle c t” de b ts “ due [to] anothe r.” 15 U.S.C . § 1692a (6). The re fore , M ER S isn’ t a

“ de bt c olle c tor” unde r the FDC PA.

* * The Honora

ble Edwa rd R . Korm an, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judgefor the E a s te rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.pa ge 3

3. Ac c ording to the

Parks’ c om

pla int, Aurora

Loa n Se rvic e s LLC (Aurora ) ha d be e n se rvic ing them ortga ge sinc e its origina tion. B e c a

use the FDC PA
e xe m pts from its de finition of “ de bt c olle c tor” any pe rson “ c olle c t ing . . . a

de bt whic h wa s not in de fa

ult a t the tim e it wa s obta ine d,” 15 U.S.C . § 1692a (6)(F)(iii), Aurora c annot be he ld lia

ble unde r the FDC PA.
4. A truste e of a

C a lifornia

de e d of trust is gene ra lly not a “ de bt c olle c tor” unde r the FDC PA. Se e Ho v. R e c onTrust C o ., NA, 858 F.3d 568, 572–73 (9th C ir. 2016). Qua lity

Loa n Se rvic e C orporat ion (Qua lity ) m ay be a de bt c olle c tor for the lim ite d purpose of se c tion 1692f(6), but the Parks didn’ t a l le ge tha

t Qua lity viola te d this se c t ion. Se e id. Thus, thedistric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d the FDC PA c la im a g a inst Qua lity
. 5. Although a

c re d itor m ay

c onstitute

a “ de bt c olle c tor,” 15 U.S.C
. § 1692a (6), Le hm a

n B rothe rs B anks, FSB c annot be he l d lia ble unde r the FDC PA be c a use the re is no a lle gation of debt c olle c tion, se e id. § 1692e . The Parks a lle ge that de fe n da nts m i sre pre se nte d the am ount the y owe d in theOc tobe r 2010 notic e of sa l e . B ut “ a c tions ta

ke n to fa c ilita

te a non-judic ia l fore c l osure , suc h a s se nding the n otic e of de fa

ult a nd notic e of sa le , a

re not a tte m p ts to c o lle c t ‘ de bt’ a s tha t te rm is de fine d by

the FDC PA.” Ho, 858 F.3d a t 572.pa ge 4

6. Although the Parks’ c om pla int m ake s pa ssing re fe re n c e s to theR e a l Esta te Se ttle m e nt Proc e dure Ac t (RESPA), the Truth in Le nding Ac t (TILA), the Hom e Owne rship a

nd Equity Prote c tion Ac t (HOEPA), it a sse rts only one c a use of
a c tion a rising unde r fe de ra l la

w: a viola tion of the FDC PA. Eve n unde r a libe ra l
c onstruc tion of thepro-se c om p la int, thec o m

pla int didn’ t “ give fa ir notic e and sta te the e le m e nts of the[RESPA, TILA a nd HOEPA] c la im [s] pla inly and
suc c inc tly .” Jone s v. C m ty . R e de ve lopm e nt Age n c y , 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th C ir. 1984) (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks a nd a lte rations omitte d); se e Fe d. R . C iv. P. 8(a ).
7. Nor did theParks’ c om pla int give“ fa ir notic e ” of the ir c la im s unde r the U.S. C onstitution. Jone s , 733 F.2d a t 649. Eve n

if it ha d, the Parks’ c onstitutiona l
c la im s would ha

ve fa ile d be c a

use a non-judic i a l fore c losure c onduc te d pursua nt to
a de e d of trust is not sta

te a c tion a

nd the re fore c annot giverise to due proc e ss
c la im s unde r the Fifth a

nd Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nts. Se e Apa o v. B ank of N.Y., 324 F.3d 1091, 1095 (9th C ir. 2003).
8. B e c a use the distric t c ourt dismisse d the Parks’ FDC PA c la im , the only
c la im ove r whic h the c ourt ha d origina l jurisdic tion, it properly de c line d to
e xe rc ise supple m e nta l jurisdic tion ove r the Parks’ sta te c la im s. Se e Gini v. La s Ve ga s M e tro. Polic e De p’ t , 40 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th C ir. 1994).pa ge 5

AFFIRM E D.