N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
DENNLY R . B EC KER ,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. W ELLS FAR GO B ANK, NA,

De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 13-16772 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-00501-KJM
C KD
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Kim be rly J. Mue lle r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding DENNLY R . B EC KER

and B EC KER TR UST DATED M AR C H 25, 1991, Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. W ELLS FAR GO B ANK, NA a nd WAC HOVIA M O RTGAGE C ORPOR ATION, De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. Nos. 14-16783 15-15322 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-02799-TLNKJN 

# F IL ED
DEC 06 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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.Appe a l from the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Troy L. Nunle y , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 29, 2016 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd HAWKINS and M c KEOW N, C irc u it Judge s. The se c onsolida

te d a p p e a ls a rise from inte ra c tions be twe e n pla i ntiff-a ppe lla nt De nnly B e c ke r, a re a l e sta te inve stor, a

nd W e l ls Fa

rgo, his
m ortga ge le nde r. B e c ke r a ppe a ls se ve ra l distric t c ourt orde rs dismissing or
e nte ring sum

m ary judgm e nt on his va

rious sta te and fe de ra l c la im s. W e a ffirm
. I Appe al No. 14-16783

A The distric t c ourt prope rly e nte re d sum m ary judgm e nt for W e lls Fa

rgo on B e c ke r’ s c l a im s for fra

ud, ne glige nc e , a

nd viola tions of C a l ifornia ’ s Unfa i r C om pe tition La

w, C a lifornia B usine ss & Profe ssions C ode § 17200 (W e st 2016). B e c ke r ide ntifie s no dispute d issueof m ate ria l fa c t a s to da m a ge s he suffe re d a s a
re sult of W e lls Fa

rgo’ s a lle g e dly

fra udule nt c onduc t with re spe c t to theShe lborne ,

** 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). 2Larkflowe r, and Third Stre e t prope rtie s. Se e Rossbe r g v . Bank of Am., N A , 219 C a l. App. 4th 1481, 1499 (2013). Nor doe s B e c ke r ra ise a disputeof m ate ria l fa c t with re spe c t to his ne g lige nc e c la im s: B e c ke r ide ntifie s no duty of c are tha

t W e lls Fargo owe d B e c ke r a s a

re sult of theba

nk’ s le n ding a c t ivitie s. Se ege ne rally C ompton v . C

o untryw ideFin. C

orp. , 761 F.3d 1046, 1055 (9th C ir. 2014); N y mark
v . He art Fe d. Sav . &Loan Ass’n , 231 C a l. App. 3d 1089, 1096 (1991). On a ppe a l, B e c ke r re sts his § 17200 c la im only on thefore going fra

ud a n d ne glige nc e c la im s. B e c a use the re are no dispute d que stions of mate ria l fa c t a s to thosec la im s , the distric t c o urt prope rly

e nte re d sum

m ary judgm e nt on B e c ke r’ s Unfa ir C om pe tition Law c la im a s we ll. C

f. Farme rs Ins. Ex c h. v . Supe rior C ourt , 826 P.2d 730, 734 (C a l. 1992). B The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion whe n it limite d the sc ope of B e c ke r’ s Third Am e nde d C om p la int. B e c ke r sought to re -ple a d c la im s for: (1) unla wful fore c losure ; (2) im

prope r fore c losure proc e ss; (3) ne glige n c e ; (4) RIC O viola tions; a nd (5) Fifth Am e ndm e nt viola tions. B e c ke r’ s unla

wful fore c losure and ne glige n c e c la i m s we re pre m ise d on his
a sse rtion tha

t thefe de ra l Hom e Owne rs’ Loa n Ac t (“ H OLA” ), 12 U.S.C
. §§ 1461–70 (2012), pre e m

pts nonjudic ia l fore c losure s pursua nt to C a lifornia

C ivil
3C ode § 2924 (W e st 2016) a nd the re fore re nde rs suc h fore c losure s unla wful. It doe s not. Se e

, e .g., Silvas v . E*Trade

Mortg. C orp. , 514 F.3d 1001, 1005–07 (9th C ir. 2008). There fore , thosec la im s a re pre c lude d. B e c ke r’ s a

m e nde d fore c losure proc e ss a nd RIC O c la im s we re only slightly
re worde d am e ndm e nts to c la im s pre viously dismisse d with pre

judic e . The distric t
c ourt the re fore did not a

b u se its disc re tion by

de ny ing B e c ke r le ave to a m e n d those
c la im s. B e c ke r’ s c l a im

tha t thedistric t c ourt deprive d him of prope rty

in viola tion of the Fifth Am e ndm e nt is ba rre d by the a bsoluteim

m unity e xte nde d to fe de ra l judge s disc ha

rging the ir jurisdic tion. Pie r son v . Ray , 386 U.S. 547, 553–54 (1967). C The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de c lining sua sponteto de la y a sum m ary judgm e nt ruling in orde

r to c onside r B e c ke r’ s August 2014
m otion for le ave to a

m e nd. Distric t c ourts e njoy “pa rtic ula rly broa d” disc re tion to grant or de ny

le ave to a

m e nd pre viously

am e nde d c om

pla ints, C hodos v . W

. Publ’g C o. , 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th C ir. 2002), a nd B e c ke r’ s m otion thre ate n e d “undu[e ] de la y [] , ” se e M/V Am. Que e n v . San Die go Mar. C

onstr. C o rp. , 708 F.2d 1483, 1492 (9th C ir. 1983).

4I I Appe al No. 13-16772

A The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d B e c ke r’ s sta

te la w c la im s. 1 B e c ke r did not prope rly

ple a d a c la im for fra ud. B e c ke r’ s First Am e nde d C om pla int ple a ds no fa c t s pla usibly a lle g ing tha

t W e lls Fa

rgo inte ntiona lly

m isre pre se nte d tha

t the ba nk

“ c o uld not verify

tha t [B e c ke r] oc c upie d Ha

rdy Pla c e . ” Nor ha s B e c ke r ide ntifie d
a m isre pre s e ntation a ssoc iate d with theQua

rry Stone W ay prope rty

on whic h B e c ke r re lie d to his detrim e nt. B e c ke r’ s e l de r a

buse and unfa i r c om

pe tition c la im s a

re pre c lude d by C a lifornia la w. C a lifornia ’ s a

ppe a ls c ourts ha

v e dismi sse d

c la im s of e lde r a

buse
arising from

fore c losure on thegrounds tha t “ [i] t is sim

ply not tortious for a
c om m e rc ia l le nde r to le nd m one y , ta ke c o l late ra l, or to fore c lose on c olla te ra l whe n a de bt is not paid.” S

te ble y v . Litton Loan Serv ic ing, LLP , 202 C a l. App. 4th 522, 528 (2011). For sim i la r re a sons, B e c k e r’ s unfa ir c om pe tition c la im

is not via b le
. Se e Farme rs Ins. Ex c h. , 826 P.2d a t 734.

1 The distric t c ourt e rrone ously he ld tha t it la c ke d dive rsity

c itiz e n ship ba se d on its a ssum

ption tha t W e lls Fa rgo wa s a c itiz e n of C a lifornia , rathe r tha n a c itiz e n of South Da

kota . None the le ss, thec l a im s la c k m e rit a nd we re the re fore prope rly dismisse d. Se eFe d. R . C iv. P. 12(b)(6).
5B

The distric t c ourt a l so prope rly dismisse d B e c ke r’ s othe r c la im s. B e c ke r’ s
c la im pursua nt to theR e a l Esta

t e Se ttle m e nt

Proc e dure s Ac t

is pre c lude d be c a

use he did not alle ge pe c unia

ry dam a ge s. Se ege n e rally Alle n v . Unite d Fin. Mortg. C orp. , 660 F. Supp. 2d 1089, 1097 (N.D. C a l. 2009). B e c ke r’ s c la im for unfa ir de bt c olle c t ion fa i ls be c a

use the c a s e doe s not involve c onsum e r de bt. Se eRiggs v
. Probe r &Raphae l , 681 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th C ir. 2012); S le n k v . Transw orld Sy

s., Inc
. , 236 F.3d 1072, 1074–75 (9th Cir. 2001). W e lls Fa rgo m oote d B e c ke r’ s im prope r fore c losure c la im

whe n the ba

nk re sc i nde d its notic e of de fa ult. Se e Lona v . C itibank , N .A. , 202 C a l . App. 4th 89, 104 (2011). B e c ke r’ s c l a im for inte ntiona l inflic tion of e m otiona l distre ss fa ils be c a use he did not alle ge outra ge ous c onduc t. S

e eQuinte ros v . Aurora Loan Serv s . , 740 F. Supp. 2d 1163, 1172 (E.D. C a l. 2010). B e c ke r’ s quie t titlea c tion is pre c l ude d be c a u se he did not te nde r. Se e S

himpone s v . Stick ne y , 28 P.2d 673, 678 (C a l. 1934) (in ba nk). C The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng B e c ke r’ s m otion to disqua lify the pre s iding ma gistra

te . The m a gistra

te ’ s re m a rks a n d rulings de m onstra

te ne ithe r bia sing knowle dge from an “ e xtra judic ia l sourc e , ” E

v e nstad v

. Unite d State s , 978 F.2d 1154, 1158 (9th C ir. 1992), nor “ de e p-se ate d favoritism or
6anta gonism” towa rd B e c ke r, se ege ne rally Litek y v . Unite d State

s , 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). III Appe al No. 15-15352 The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in a

warding a ttorne y s’ fe e s to W e lls Fa rgo. Se e Saint J

ohn’s Organic

Farm v . Ge m C

ty . Mosquito Abate

me nt Dist. , 574 F.3d 1054, 1058 (9th C ir. 2009) (c iting Fisc he r v . SJ B-P.D. Inc
. , 214 F.3d 1115, 1118 (9th C ir. 2000)) (sta t ing sta n da rd of re vie w ). B e c ke r e sse ntia lly
argue s tha

t thedistric t c ourt e rre d in de te rm ining tha t HOLA wa s a

pplic a ble to his
c la im s a nd, the re fore , the re wa s no c ontra c tua l ba sis for a ttorne y s’ fe e s a

n d W e lls Fargo wa s not thepre va iling pa rty . B e c ke r doe s not c onte s t theam o unt of fe e s
awarde d or them anne r in whic h the distric t c ourt c a lc ulate d the fe e s. The distric t
c ourts prope rly

re je c t e d B e c ke r’ s a

rgum e nts on them e rits in the c om pa nion c a se s . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in finding tha t: (1) the note s a

nd

7de e ds of trust a uthoriz e d suc h fe e s; (2) W e lls Fa rgo wa s the pre va iling pa rty ; a nd (3) the fe e s we re re a sona

ble
. 2 AFFIRM E D
.

2 B e c ke r m ove d to strikeW e lls Fa rgo’ s a lte rnative argum e nts for dismissa l. Se eMot. to Strik

ePortions of Appe lle e ’s Br. by Plaintiff-Appe llant , No. 13-16772 EC F No. 17 (file d June3, 2014). B e c a use doc trine s of a

ppe lla te pra c tic e pe rm it this C ourt to a ffirm

dismissa l on a l te rnat ive grounds, s e e By rd v . Maric opa C ty
. She riff’s De

p’t , 629 F.3d 1135, 1139 (9th C ir. 2011), B e c ke r’ s No. 13-16772 m otion to strike is de n i e d. 8