N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
KOFI OB ENG-AM PONSAH, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. C HASE HOM E FINANC E, LLC ; M OR TGAGE ELEC TR ONIC REGISTERED SYSTEM S INC .; LEHM AN B R OTHER S STR UC TURED ASSET INVESTM ENT LOAN TR UST SAIL 2005-5; U.S. B ANK NATIONAL ASSOC IATION, Truste e for Le hm an B rothe rs Struc t

ure d Asse t Inve stm e nt Loa n Trust Sa il 2005-5; U.S. B ANK NATIONAL ASSOC IATION, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s,

__________________________ FIR ST AM ER IC AN LOANSTAR SER VIC ES; FINANC E AM ER IC A, LLC , De fe nda

nts. No. 11-55397 D.C . No. 5:09-c v-00096-GHK-JC
M EM O R ANDUM * 

# FIL ED

AUG 20 2015 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3.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 Ge orge H. King, C hie f 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 : KOZINSKI a

nd C A LLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s a nd KOR M AN, ** Se nior Distric t Judge
. Kofi Obe ng-Am

ponsa h (“ Obe ng” ) a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of his R e a l Esta

t e Se ttle m e nt Proc e dure s Ac t (RESPA), Truth in Le nding Ac t (TILA), Hom e Owne rship a

nd Equity Prote c tion Ac t (HOEPA), Fa ir C re dit R e porting Ac t (FC R A), Fa ir De b t C olle c tion Pra c tic e s Ac t (FDC PA), and R a c ke te e r Influe nc e d
and C orrupt Orga

niz ations Ac t (R IC O) c la im s, a s we ll a s his va rious sta te la w
c la im s. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a nd we a ffirm
. 1 1. The distric t c ourt prope rly found tha

t Obe n g’ s RESPA c la im , a lle ging that De fe nda nts im prope rly a c c e pte d a

kic kba c k or bribe , wa s ba rre d by the

** The Honora

ble Edwa rd R . Korm an, Se n i or Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Ea s te rn Distric t of Ne wYork, sitting by de signa tion. 1 Although not ne c e ssa ry to the re solution of this a ppe a l, we grant Obe ng’ s re que s t for judic ia l notic e a s to (1) his opening brie f in his a ppe a l file d in the C a l ifornia

C ourt of Appe a l, (2) a

de c la ra tion file d in the distric t c ourt in this c a se , a nd (3) a publishe d opinion in Gilbe rt v
. Re side ntial Funding LLC

, No. 10- 2295, slip op. (4th C ir. M ay 3, 2012). Se e Dkts. 35, 36. W e de ny his re que st to judic ia lly notic e a doc um e nt e n title d “ substitution of truste e ” a s the doc um e nt doe s not be ar a

ny indic ia of re c ording. 2a

pplic a ble one -y e ar statute of lim ita tions. Se e 12 U.S.C . § 2614. Thea lle ge d kic k ba c k oc c urre d vis-a -vis the De c e m be r 24, 2004 c o ntra c ts, a

nd Obe ng did not file his c om

pla int until Ja

nua ry 2009. Obe ng’ s othe r RESPA c la im , a sse rting tha t De fe nda nts fa ile d to re spond to his qua lifie d writte n re que sts, a l so fa ils a s Obe ng’ s
a lle gations do not c onne c t the a lle ge d fa ilure to re spond to his qua l ifie d writte n
re que s ts with a

ny a c t ua l da m a ge s. Se e 12 U.S.C . § 2605(f)(1). 2. Like wise , the distric t c ourt prope rly found tha

t Obe ng’ s HOEPA a

nd TILA disc losure c la im s we re ba rre d by the a pplic a ble one -y e ar statute of lim ita tions. Se e 15 U.S.C . § 1640(e ) (2006) (am e nde d 2010). Equita ble tolling doe s not a pply a s Obe ng a dm itte dly

kne w in 2004 tha

t his loa n re pre s e ntative ha d
atte m pte d to inse rt a

n a djusta b le rate ride r into thea gre e m e nt a nd tha t the truth in le nding disc losure s we re inc om ple te . 3. The distric t c ourt dismisse d Obe ng’ s TILA c la im se e king re s c ission a s he fa ile d to a lle g e tha

t he te n d e re d the va lue of the loa n to his c re ditor a s re q

uire d by 15 U.S.C . § 1635(b). In Me rritt v . C ountryw ide Financ ial C

orp. , 759 F.3d 1023, 1033 (9th C ir. 2014), howe ve r, the Ninth C irc uit he ld tha t “ pla i ntiffs c an sta te a c la im for re sc ission under TILA without ple a d ing tha t the y hav e te nde re d, or tha t the y hav e the a

bility to te nde r, the va lue of the i r loa n.”

3W e a ffirm the dism i ssa l on thea lte rnat ive ground tha t Obe ng fa i le d to
e xe rc ise his right to re sc ind within the thre e -y e ar statute of re pose . S e e J e sinosk i v
. C ountryw ideHome Loans, Inc
. , 135 S. C t. 790, 792 (2015). Obe ng wa s re quire d to se nd his written notic e of re sc ission within thre e y e ars of De c e m be r 24, 2004, whic h is “ the date of c onsum m ation of thetra

nsa c tion.” 15 U.S.C
. § 1635(f). Howe ve r, Obe n g wa ite d to se nd his notic e s of re sc ission until June 2008. At ora l a rgum e nt, Obe ng’ s c ounse l a rgue d, for the first tim e , tha t a diffe re nt
se c t ion of thec om

pla int a lle ge d tha

t Obe ng atte m

pte d to re sc ind the loa

n within the s tat ute of re pose . Assum ing Obe ng m a de this a rgum e nt in his c om

pla int, he
wa ive d it on a

p pe a l by not ra ising it in his brie fing. Se e C ruz v . Int'l C

olle c tion C orp. , 673 F.3d 991, 998 (9th C ir. 2012) (“ W e re vie w only issue s whic h a

re
argue d spe c ific a lly

and distinc tly

in a pa rty ’ s ope ning brie f.” ). 4. Obe ng’ s FC R

Ac la im s a lso fa il. Title15 U.S.C
. § 1681s-2(a) de ta ils the d uty “ to providea c c ura t e inform ation,” howe ve r, “ [d] utie s im pose d on furnishe rs unde r subse c tion (a ) are e nforc e a ble only by fe de ra l or sta

te a ge nc ie s.” Gorman v . W

olpoff & Abramson, LLP , 584 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th C ir. 2009). Furthe rm ore , a lthough 15 U.S.C . § 1682s-2(b) im pose s a se c o nd c ate gory of dutie s on furnishe rs of inform ation tha t a re trigge re d “ upon notic e of dispute ,” Obe ng did not a lle ge tha

t De fe n da nts re c e ive d a

notic e of disputefrom

a c re dit re p orting 4a ge nc y . Thus, thedistric t c ourt did not err in dismissing his FC R A c la im s. Gorman , 584 F.3d a

t 1154. 5. The distric t c ourt did not err in dismissing Obe ng’ s FDC PA c l a im s a s Obe ng a lle ge d tha

t C ha se a s sum e d se rvic ing re sponsibilitie s to Obe ng’ s loa n prior to a ny de fa ult. Thus, C ha se wa s not a de bt c o lle c tor unde r 15 U.S.C . § 1692a (6)(F)(iii). 2 Se e De Dios v . Int'l Re a lty & Inv s. , 641 F.3d 1071, 1073 (9th C ir. 2011). Furthe rm ore , Obe ng fa ile d to a lle g e any a c tiona ble c onduc t by

M ER S or U.S. B ank in his FDC PA c la im for re lie f, the re fore , the distric t c ourt did not err in dismissing this c l a im

a ga inst those

De fe nda n ts. 6. The distric t c ourt did not err in dismissing Obe ng’ s R IC O c la im s a s Obe ng fa ile d to a lle g e the pre dic ate ra c k e te e ring a c ts of m a il a n d wire fra

ud with pa rtic u la rity
. Se e Fe d. R . C iv. P. 9(b); N e u bronne r v . Milk

e n , 6 F.3d 666, 672 (9th C ir. 1993). Furthe rm ore , Obe ng only a lle ge d unde rly ing fra

ud a nd forge ry

a s to a single vic tim

(him se lf), whic h is insuffic ie nt for RIC O. S e e Se v e r v . Alask

a Pulp C orp. , 978 F.2d 1529, 1535 (9th C ir. 1992). 7. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

granting De fe n da

nts’
m otion to dism

iss Obe ng’ s Fourth Am e nde d C om pla i nt. Obe n g fa ile d to file an

2 W e ne e d not a

n d do not de c i de whe the r a loa n se rvic e r c a

n e ve r be a de bt c olle c t or or whe the r C a lifornia ’ s non-judic i a l fore c losure proc e e dings c onstitute a de bt c olle c tion unde r the FDC PA. 5opposition to De fe nda nts’ m otion to dism

iss. M o re ove r, the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l c a

m e a fte r it de m onstra

te d c onside ra

ble patie nc e with Obe ng, a pro se litiga nt, by providing nume rous e xte nsions, c onside ring untim e ly filings, a n d libe ra l ly c onstruing his filings, for two y e ars. Se eGhazali v . Moran , 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th C ir. 1995) (pe r c uriam ). 8. As the distric t c ourt dismisse d a ll of Obe ng’ s fe de ra l c la im s, it did not
e rr by re fusing to e xe rc ise supple m e n ta l jurisdic t ion ove r Obe ng’ s sta te la w c la im s . Se e Unite d Mine

W o rk e rs of Am. v . Gibbs , 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). AFFIRM E D.

6