N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M AR Y JULIET NG, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. U.S. B ANK, NA, e t a l.,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. Nos. 16-16949 16-17370 D.C . No. 4:15-c v-04998-KAW
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia K andis A. W e stm ore , M a gistra te Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 13, 2018 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER

and WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s, a nd SESSIONS, * ** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED FEB 16 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 ora l a

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

* * * The Honora

ble W illia m K. Se ssions III, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ve rm ont, sitting by de s igna tion.Pa ge 2 of 5

1. The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d M a

ry Ng’ s wrongful fore c losure
c la im with pre judic e . To sta

te a via b le c la im unde r C a lifornia

la w, Ng m ust a lle ge that de fe c ts in he r loa

n a s signm e nts re nde re d the a s signm e nts void, ra the r tha n
m e re ly voida ble
. S e e Yv anov a v . N

e w C e ntury Mortgage

C orp ., 365 P.3d 845, 861 (C a l. 2016). She c annot pla usibly a lle ge tha

t e le m e nt of he r c la im
. C ontra ry to Ng’ s argum e nt, U.S. B ank c a n unde rtake a

fore c losure sa le e ve n though it wa s not na

m e d in the April 2010 a s signm e nt. Tha t a ssignm e nt transfe rre d be n e fic ia l inte re s t in thede e d of trust a nd prom issory

note from JPM orga n C ha se B a

nk to B ank of Am e ric a

a s truste e . B ut a s Ng a c knowle d ge s, B ank of Am e ric a

a ssigne d truste e rights to U.S. B ank in De c e m b e r 2010 whe n U.S. B ank purc h a se d B ank of Am e ric a ’ s truste e busine ss. W hile the re wa s no re c o rde d a ssignm e nt of the prom issory note an d de e d of trust be t we e n B ank of Am e ric a and U.S. B ank, C a lifornia la w doe s not re quire tha

t the a ssignm e nt of a note se c ure d by

a de e d of trust bere c orde d. Se eC alv o v . HSBC

Bank USA, N .A. , 199 C a l. App. 4th 118, 123 (2011). Ng a sse rts tha

t the 2011 a ssignm e nt tra

nsfe rring the de e d

of trust from JPM orga n C ha se to B ank of Am e ric a is void be c a

u se it did not inc lude la

ngua ge transfe rring the prom issory note , but this a

rgum e nt is una

va iling. Eve n if tha

t de fe c t re n de re d the 2011 a ssignm e nt void, it would not give rise to a wrongfulPa ge 3 of 5

fore c losure a c t ion. The 2011 a s signm e nt m e re l y duplic ate d a nd m e m oria liz e d the April 2010 a ssignm e n t, whic h tra nsfe rre d both the note and de e d of trust to B ank of Am e ric a

a s truste e . B e c a

use U.S. B ank la

te r a c q u ire d B ank of Am e ric a ’ s truste e rights, it is the

c urre nt be ne fic ia

ry unde r the note and de e d of trust. U.S. B ank’ s e xe c ution of thefore c l osure sa le while this a ppe a l wa s pe nding doe s not c ha

n ge the outc om e . Ng still c annot a lle ge tha t the a ssignm e nts of he r loa n we re void. The re fore , am e ndm e nt of he r c om pla int would be futile
. 2. W e a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of Ng’ s c la im s for de c la ra tory
re lie f, sla nde r of title , a

nd viola tions of C a lifornia ’ s Unfa ir C om pe t ition La

w. On
a ppe a l, Ng a sse rts only

tha t the se c la im s a

re de riva tive of he r wrongful fore c losure
c la im . B e c a

use Ng’ s wrongful fore c losure c la im fa i ls, he r de rivative c la im s fa il a s we ll. 3. The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Ng’ s Fa ir De b t C olle c tion Pra c tic e s Ac t (FDC PA) c la im
. Ng’ s a lle g ation tha t the de fe nda

nts viola te d 15 U.S.C
. § 1692e is without me rit. The de fe nda n ts’ a c tions “ to fa c ilita

te a non-judic ia l fore c losure . . . a

re n o t atte m

pts to c olle c t ‘ de b t’ a s tha t te rm is de fine d by

the FDC PA.” Ho v . Re c onTrust C o . , 858 F.3d 568, 572 (9th C ir. 2016). Ng’ s re lia nc e on Dow e rs v . N

ationstar Mortgage

, LLC , 852 F.3d 964 (9th C ir. 2017), is m

ispla c e d. The holding in Dow e rs wa s lim ite d to § 1692f(6), but NgPa ge 4 of 5

ha s not a lle ge d viola

tions of tha

t provision. Eve

n if she ha d, tha

t c la im would fa il be c a use Ng c annot a sse rt tha

t U.S. B ank ha s no right “to posse ssion of theprope rty
c la im e d a s c olla

te ra l .” 15 U.S.C . § 1692f(6)(A). Ac c ordingly , any atte m pt to
am e nd he r c om

pla int to a lle ge viola

tions of § 1692f would be futile
. 4. The distric t c ourt prope rly awarde d attorne y ’ s fe e s to U.S. B ank a nd Se le c t Portfolio Se rvic ing, Inc (SPS). Ng doe s not dispute tha t this la wsuit is a n
a c tion “ on a

c ontra c t” within the

m e aning of C a lifornia

C ivil C ode § 1717(a ). As the p re va iling pa

rtie s, U.S. B ank a

nd SPS are e ntitle d to re a sona ble attorne y ’ s fe e s pursua nt to thete rm s of Ng’ s prom issory note . Ng’ s a rgum e nt tha

t the fore c losure sa le e xtinguishe d he r obliga tion to pa y a ttorne y ’ s fe e s is unpe rsua sive . C a lifornia la w distinguishe s be twe e n

inde b te dne ss unde r a note an d a

n obliga tion unde r the note to pa

y attorne y ’ s fe e s. This is be c a use an a ward of attorne y ’ s fe e s “ is the re sult of thede b tor-trustor’ s volunta ry
a c t in bringing a

n unm e ritorious suit whic h the c re ditor-be n e fic ia

ry wa s re quire d to
m ake e xpe n diture s to de fe nd.” Passanisi v . Me rit-Mc Bride Re altors, Inc
. , 190 C a l. App. 3d 1496, 1509 (1987). While U.S. B ank a

nd SPS are not signa

torie s to the prom issory

note , the y none the l e ss a

re e ntitle d to a

tt orne y ’ s fe e s . U.S. B ank is thec urre nt be ne fic ia ry unde r the note and de e d of trust, a nd SPS is its a ge nt. Ac c ordingly , both “ sta nd[] inPa ge 5 of 5

the s hoe s” of the origina l signa tory le nde r. C

argill, Inc . v . Souza , 201 C a l. App. 4th 962, 966 (2011). 5. The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d the a

p pe lle e s’ m otion to e xpunge the lis pe nde n s be c a

use Ng ha s not e sta

blishe d the “ proba

ble va lidity ” of a

re a l prope rty
c la im . C a l. C iv. Proc . C o de § 405.32. Ng’ s m otions for judic i a l notic e (16-16949 Doc ke t Entry 19, 16-17370 Doc ke t 10) a

re DE NIE D a s m oot. AFFIRM E D.