N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT KATHLEEN D. GATES,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. M C T GR OUP, INC . a

nd THE LAW OFFIC E S OF PETER

W . SINGER , De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-55728 D.C . No. 3:13-c v-02611-M M A-DHB M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia M ic ha e l M . Ane llo, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 15, 2017 * * Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : M . SM ITH a

nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s, a nd KOR M AN, *** Distric t Judge . 

# FIL ED FEB 23 2017 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Edwa rd R . Korm an, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the E a s te rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.Pla intiff-Appe lla nt Ka t hle e n D. Ga

te s (Gate s ) a

p pe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt to De fe nda

nt-Appe l le e The Law Offic e s of Pe te r W . Singe r (Singe r). Gate s’ c la im s a rise out of a

le vy on he r bank a c c o unts a uthoriz e d by

Singe r, whic h Gate s c la im s re sulte d in the le vy ing of e xe m pt Soc ia l Se c urity be ne fits in c ontra

ve ntion of 42 U.S.C . § 407(a ). Gat e s c onte nds tha t the distric t c o urt e rre d in re

je c ting he r c la im s tha

t Singe r viola

te d the Fa ir De bt C olle c tion Pra c tic e s Ac t (FDC PA) and C a lifornia ’ s R ose ntha l Ac t by (1) thre ate ning to ta

ke an a c tion tha

t c o uld not le ga lly be ta

ke n, a nd (2) using unfa ir or unc onsc iona

ble m e ans to c olle c t a

de bt. B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c ts, we do not re c ount the m he re . W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly he ld tha t Singe r did not viola

te the FDC PA, 15 U.S.C . § 1692e (5), by

“ thre a t[e ning] to ta

k e an[] a c tion tha

t c annot le ga lly

be take n.” A hy

pothe tic a l “ le a st sophistic ate d de btor” who re c e ive d the Notic e of Le vy and a c c o m

pa ny ing doc um e ntation re c e ive d by Gate s would not ha

v e vie we d the l e vy a s a thre a t t o le vy

he r e xe m pt Soc ia l Se c urity

be ne fits, a

n d would ha

ve be e n “ a ble to unde rsta

nd, m ake inform e d de c isions a bout, a nd pa rtic ipate fully

and
m e aningfully in the de bt c olle c tion proc e ss,” be c a use the doc um e n tation she re c e ive d inform e d he r that those be ne fits we re e xe m pt a n d instruc t e d he r a s to the 2proc e s s for c la im ing a n e xe m ption. C lark v . C a pital C re dit &C olle c t ion Se rv

s., Inc
. , 460 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th C ir. 2006). All pa rtie s involve d in the le vy c om plie d with fe de ra l la

wan d sta te proc e dure s tha

t a re c onsiste nt with 42 U.S.C . § 407(a ) and its im

ple m e nting re gula

tions a nd provide a dditiona l prote c tion to de btors. Se e 31 C .F.R . § 212.9 (c onsiste nt sta te la wis not pre e m

pte d ); se e also C a l. C ode C iv. Proc . § 704.080 (e sta blishing a utom at ic e xe m

ptions for dep osit a c c ounts a

n d proc e dure for c la im ing e xe m ptions a b o ve a utom atic am ount); id . §§ 703.520, 703.550 (a

dditiona l proc e dure s for c la im ing e xe m ptions). Ac c ordingly , the proc e ss worke d to prote c t Gat e s’ pote ntia l ly e x e m pt funds, a

nd the d istric t c o urt c orre c tly grante d sum

m ary judgm e n t

to Singe r on this c l a im . The distric t c ourt a l so c orre c tly gran te d sum

m ary judgm e nt to Singe r on Gate s’ c la im

tha t Singe r viola

te d the FDC PA, 15 U.S.C . § 1692f, by “ us[ing] unfa ir or unc onsc iona

ble m e ans to c olle c t or a

tte m pt to c olle c t

a [] de b t.” Gate s c onte nds tha

t Singe r viola

te d this provision by a

uthoriz ing the le vy

without first inve stiga ting whe t he r Gate s’ a c c ounts c onta i ne d e xe m p t Soc ia l Se c urity

be ne fits; howe v e r, Gate s fa ils to provide any a uthority de m onstra

ting tha t Singe r wa s re quire d to do a

nything m o re tha

n c om ply with C a lifornia ’ s proc e d

ure s. Singe r is not re quire d to show tha

t it m a inta ine d “ proc e dure s re a sona bly a d a pte d to a void an[] e rror” whe n Gate s fa ils to e sta blish tha t a n e rror in the form

of a n FDC PA 3viola

tion ha s oc c urre d. 15 U.S.C . § 1692k(c ). Furthe rm ore , the C a lifornia proc e d ure s followe d he re do not c onflic t with fe de ra l la w a nd a re distinc t from those at issue in Be nne t t v . Ark ansas , 485 U.S. 395 (1988) (per c uriam ), C raw ford
v . Gould, 56 F.3d 1162 (9th C ir. 1995), a n d Brink man v . Rahm , 878 F.2d 263 (9th C ir. 1989) (pe r c uriam ). B e c a use the distric t c ourt c orre c tly grante d sum m ary judgm e n t on Ga

te s’ FDC PA c la im s , he r R ose ntha l Ac t c la im s a lso fa il. Se e Riggs v . Probe r & Raphae l , 681 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th C i r. 2012) (C a lifornia ’ s “ R ose ntha l Ac t m im ic s or inc orporate s by

re fe re nc e the FDC PA’ s re quire m e nts . . . a nd m ake s a

v a ila ble the FDC PA’ s re m e die s for viola tions.” ); se e also C a l . C iv. C ode § 1788.17 (“ [E] ve ry de bt c olle c tor c olle c t ing or a tte m pting to c olle c t a

c onsum e r de bt sha ll c om ply with theprovisions of Se c tions 1692b to 1692j, incl usive , of, a nd sha ll be subje c t to there m e die s in Se c tion 1692k of, Title 15 of the Unite d State s C ode .” ). AFFIRM E D.

4