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 IC HAEL B ONDI,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. NATIONSTAR

M OR TGAGE LLC ; B ANK OF AM E R IC A, N.A.,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 17-15564 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-01215-LDG-GWF
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Lloy d D. Ge orge , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Oc tobe r 10, 2018 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : D.W . NELSON, W . FLETC HER , and B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s . Pla intiff M ic ha e l B ondi a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of De fe nda

nts Na tionsta r M ortga g e LLC (“Nat ionsta r” ) and B ank of Am e ric a , N.A. (“ B ANA” ) on B ondi’ s c la im s tha t Nat ionsta

r and B ANA viola te d the Fa ir C re dit R e porting Ac t (“ FC R A” ), 15 U.S.C . § 1681 e t se q. , a nd the 

# FIL ED OCT 24 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.Fa ir De bt C olle c tion Pra c tic e s Ac t (“ FDC PA” ), 15 U.S.C . § 1692 e t se q. W e have

jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt denov o . Gorman
v . W olpoff & Abramson, LLP , 584 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th C ir. 2009). Vie wing the
e vide nc e in the light m o st fa vora ble to the non-m o ving pa

rty , we m ust de te rm ine whe the r the re are any

ge nuine dispute s of m ate ria l fa c t a nd whe the r the re is suffic i e nt e vide nc e favoring thenon-m oving pa rty suc h tha t a jury c ould re turn a
ve rdic t in its fa

vor. Frie dman v . Liv e N

a tion Me rc h., Inc
. , 833 F.3d 1180, 1184–85 (9th C ir. 2016). Evidenc e tha t is “ m e re ly

c olora ble ” will not overc om e sum m ary judgm e nt, nor will e vide nc e tha t is “ ba s e d sole ly

on spe c u l ation.” LVRC

Holdings LLC v . Bre k k a , 581 F.3d 1127, 1136–37 (9th C ir. 2009) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d). “ W e will not re ve rse a distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt” if the non-m oving pa rty fa ile d to “ ide ntif[y ] the e vide nc e e sta blishing a ge nuine i ssue of m ate ria l fa c t in its opposition to sum m ary judgm e nt.” Id. at 1137. 1. The distric t c ourt c onc lude d tha t B ondi’ s FC R

A c la im a ga inst Nationsta r fa i le d be c a

use he did not offe r any

e vide nc e showing tha

t Nationsta

r re c e ive d notic e of a dispute from a c onsum e r c re dit re porting a ge nc y (“ C R A ” ). Unde r the FC R

A, a furnishe r’ s sta

tutory obliga tions a re trigge re d “ o nly

a fte r the furnishe r re c e i ve s notic e of a disputefrom

a C R A; notic e of a dispute re c e ive d
2dire c tly

from the c onsum e r” is insuffic ie n t. G orman , 584 F.3d a t 1154 (disc ussing 15 U.S.C . § 1681s-2(b)(1)); se e Dre w v . Equifax Info. Se rv

s ., LLC , 690 F.3d 1100, 1106 (9th C ir. 2012). On a ppe a l, B ondi c ite s only

his dire c t c orre sponde nc e with Na tionsta r,
arguing tha

t he “ m a de num e rous phone c a lls a n d wrote num e rous le tte rs to Nationsta r” prote sting its c re dit re porting. B ut his dire c t c orre sponde nc e with Nationsta r is irre le va

nt; B ondi doe s not ide ntify any notic e of a

disputetha

t Nationsta r re c e ive d from a C

RA , a nd he c e rta inly did not iden tify any suc h notic e in the distric t

c o urt. S e e , e .g. , Gordon v . Virtumundo, Inc
. , 575 F.3d 1040, 1058 (9th C ir. 2009) (“ The ‘ p arty opposing sum

m ary judgm e nt m

ust dire c t the c o urt’ s
atte ntion to spe c ific , tria

ble fa c ts,’ and the re vie w ing c ourt is ‘ not re quire d to c om b through there c ord to find some re a son to de ny a m o tion for sum

m a ry judgm e nt.’ ” (c ita tions a nd inte rna l a lte rations omitte d)). Eve n a ssum ing Na

tionsta r ha d re c e ive d notic e of a dispute , B ondi doe s not
artic ulate how Na

tionsta r viola te d the FC R

A. Upon re c e iving notic e of a dispute from a C R A, a furnishe r is re quire d

unde r the FC R

A to c onduc t

a re a sona ble inve stiga tion a nd c orre c t a

ny e rrors it finds. 15 U.S.C . § 1681s-2(b)(1); Gorman , 584 F.3d a

t 1156–57. B ondi ha s produc e d no e vide nc e showing tha t Nationsta

r fa ile d in this re ga

rd; inste a d, he points to Na tionsta r’ s re fusa l to be lie ve his
3a sse rtion tha t his loa n ha d be e n

forgive n. Nothing in the FC R A oblige d Nationsta

r to a c c e pt this a sse rtion a s true and re solve the disputein his fa vor. C f. Gorman , 584 F.3d a

t 1161 (“ An inve stiga

tion is not ne c e ssa

rily unre a sona

ble be c a use it
re sults in a

substa n t ive c onc lusion unfa

vora ble to the c onsum e r, e ve n if tha t
c onc lusion turns out to be ina c c urate .” ). 2. The distric t c ourt c onc lude d tha t B ondi’ s FC R

A c la im a ga inst B ANA
wa s ra ise d for the first tim e in his opposition to sum m ary judgm e nt a

nd the re fore
am ounte d to “ an untim e ly e ffort to a

m e nd his ple a d ings.” B ondi doe s not a ddre ss the d istric t c o urt’ s ruling on a ppe a l. He ha s thus wa ive d his c h a lle n g e to it. Se e Unite d State s v . K ama , 394 F.3d 1236, 1238 (9th C ir. 2005); Paladin Assoc s., Inc
. v . Mont. Pow e r

C o. , 328 F.3d 1145, 1164 (9th C ir. 2003). In a ny e ve nt, B ondi ha s not shown tha

t B ANA re c e ive d

notic e of a

disputefrom

a C R A within the

FC R A’ s lim ita tions pe riod. Se e Gorman , 584 F.3d a t 1154. B ondi’ s only

e vide nc e is a
re port se nt by

B ANA to a

C R A, whic h is not e vide nc e tha t B ANA re c e ive d notic e from a C R A a s the sta

tute re quire s. 3. The distric t c ourt c onc lude d tha t B ondi’ s FDC PA c la im

a ga inst Nationsta r is tim e -ba

rre d unde r the FDC PA’ s one -y e ar statute of lim ita t ions, 15 U.S.C . § 1692k(d). W e hav e he ld tha t the FDC PA’ s lim ita

tions pe riod is subje c t to the “ disc ove ry rule ” and thus doe s not be gin to run until the pla intiff knows or
4“ ‘ re a s ona

bly c ould ha ve be c om e aware of’ ” the “ a lle g e d viola tion.” Ly ons v . Mic hae l & Assoc

s. , 824 F.3d 1169, 1171 (9th C ir. 2016) (quoting Tourge man v . C ollins Fin. Se

rv s., Inc
. , 755 F.3d 1109, 1118 n.5 (9th C ir. 2014)); s e e Mangum v
. Ac tion C olle c tion Se rv . , Inc
. , 575 F.3d 935, 940–41 (9th C ir. 2009). B ondi’ s only

argum e nt on a

ppe a l is tha

t the lim ita

tions pe riod in this c a se did not be gin to run until he kne w of the am ount of “ dam a ge s” that ha d a c c rue d from the a lle ge d viola

tion. B ut the lim ita

t ions pe riod is triggere d by the pla intiff’ s knowle dge of the a l le ge d viola t ion, not da

m a ge s. S e e Ly ons , 824 F.3d a

t 1171 (looking to the

pla intiff’ s knowle dge of the a lle ge dly “ wrongful filing of a de bt
c olle c tion a c tion” ); Tourge m an , 755 F.3d a t 1118 n.5 (looking to the

pla intiff’ s knowle dge “ of the a lle ge dly fa lse and m isle a ding re p re se ntations” (c ita tion
om i tte d)); Mangum , 575 F.3d a t 941 (looking to the

pla intiff’ s knowle dge “ that he r c he c ks ha d be e n disc lose d” in a n a l le ge dly

im prope r m anne r). B o ndi doe s not
c onte st tha

t he kne w of the a lle ge d viola tion whe n it oc c urre d. B ondi’ s the ory fa i ls in a

ny e ve nt be c a

use he sought sta

t utory dam a ge s unde r 15 U.S.C . § 1692k(a)(2)(A). Those dam a ge s a c c rue d a nd we re pre sum a

bly known
at the m om e nt of Na

tionsta r’ s a lle ge d viola

tion, irre spe c tive of a

ny a d ditiona l dam a ge s tha

t m ight ha

ve late r a c c rue d. Se e TRW Inc . v . Andre w s , 534 U.S. 19, 35 (2001).
54. The distric t c ourt c onc lude d tha t B ondi’ s FDC PA c la im

a ga inst B ANA fa ile d be c a

use B A NA is not a

“ de bt c olle c tor” subje c t to theFDC PA. B ondi doe s not obje c t to this ruling on a ppe a l a nd ha s thus wa ive d a

ny c ha l le nge to it. Se e Ramire

z v . C ity of Bue na Park

, 560 F.3d 1012, 1025 (9th C ir. 2009).
* * * The judgm e nt of the distric t c ourt is A FFIRM E D . B ondi’ s m o tion for fe e s
and c osts (Dkt. No. 30) is DE NIE D
.

6