N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R ONALD M . GUTIER

R EZ, on be ha lf of him se lf a nd a l l othe rs sim ila

rly situa te d, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. W ELLS FAR GO B ANK, NA, DB AW e l ls Fargo Hom e M ortga ge , Inc . And W ELLS FAR GO REAL ESTATE TAX SER VIC ES, LLC , De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-17271 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-01135-SI 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 Susa n Illston, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d De c e m

be r 12, 2014 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN, N.R . SM ITH, a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s . R ona ld Gutie rre z a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of his a c tion for fa ilure to sta

t e a c l a im . His c la i m s turn on la ngua ge c onta ine d in a

Se ttle m e n t C o st 

# F IL ED APR 06 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.B ookle t m a

ndate d by De pa rtm e nt of Housing a

nd Urba n De ve lopm e nt re gula

tions and provide d to him

by W e lls Fa rgo. The fa c ts a

re known to the

pa rtie s a nd will not be re pe at e d he re . The distric t c ourt did not err whe n it c onc lude d tha t Gutie rre z fa ile d to a lle g e a de quate ly

tha t W e lls Fa rgo’ s pra c tic e s we re c ontra ry to the B ookle t’ s la

ngua ge . The B ookle t provide s tha t the tax se rvic e fe e “ c ove rs the c o st of y our le n de r e nga ging a

third pa rty to m onitor a

nd ha ndle the pa

ym e nt of y our prope rty

tax bills.” It e xpla ins tha

t “ [t] his is done

to e n sure tha

t y o ur tax pa

y m e nts a re m a de on tim e and to pre ve nt ta

x lie ns from

oc c urring.” It a lso sta

te s tha t the taxse rvic e fe e is “pa id to a

tax se rvic e provide r for inform ation on the re a l e sta te prope rty

tax.” Gutie rre z urge s tha

t W e lls Fa

rgo did not a c tua l ly

provide tax se rvic e s be c a use he pa id his own property

taxe s in lie u of W e lls Fa

rgo m a inta ining a

n e sc row a c c ount to pa y those taxe s. Gutie rre z ’ s a lle g ations re ga rding W e lls Fa

rgo’ s busine ss pra c t ic e s do not pla u sibly sta te a c la im for re lie f. Gutie rre z doe s not dispute tha t W e lls Fa

rgo m onitors ta

x pa ym e nts by

borrowe rs who do not ha ve e sc row a c c ounts to e nsure that prope rty tax pa ym e nts a re m a de on tim e and to pre v e nt lie ns from oc c urring. His only c onte ntion is tha t W e l ls Fa

rgo is re quire d to do m ore tha n m onitoring a

nd ve rific ation if these rvic e s it provide s a re to be c onside re d a

“ tax se rvic e .” W e 2c onc lude tha t the distric t

c ourt did not err whe n it he l d tha t W e lls Fa

rgo’ s pra c tic e s are c onsiste nt with the

Se ttle m e nt C ost B ookle t ’ s una m biguous de finition of the tax se rvic e fe e . 1 B e c a use a ll of Gutie rre z ’ s c la im s turn on thec o nstruc tion of theSe ttle m e nt C ost B ookle t a

nd he ha s not a de quate ly a lle ge d tha t W e lls Fa

rgo’ s pra c t ic e s c ontra ve ne the la

ngua ge of the Se ttle m e nt C ost B ookle t, the distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d his c la im s . Se e Fre e man v . Time , Inc
. , 68 F.3d 285, 290 (9th C ir. 1995) (a ffirm ing dismissa l of Unfa ir C om pe t ition La

w a n d re lat e d c l a im s whe re pla intiff fa ile d to show docum e nts provide d to him we re untrue or m isle a ding). AFFIRM E D .

1 W e lls Fa

rgo’ s re que st in its brie f that the c ourt ta

ke judic ia l notic e of Gutie rre z ’ s de e d of trust a n d its M otion for Judic ia l Notic e re que sting thec ourt take judic ia l notic e of a

n e xc e rpt from

Fre ddie M a c ’ s Fam ily

Se rvic ing Guide line s are h e re by de nie d a s m oot. 3Gutie r

re z v . W e lls Fargo , No. 12-17271 N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge , c onc urring in thejudgm e nt: On a ppe a l, whe n re vie wing a

distric t c ourt’ s orde r gran ting a m otion to dism iss, a ll a lle gations of m ate ria l fa c t in thec om pla i nt m ust be ta ke n a s true and c onstrue d in the light m ost fa vora ble to the nonm o ving pa

rty . Se eK

nie v e l v
. ESPN , 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th C ir. 2005). In his c om pla int, Gutie rre z a lle ge d that the de finition of “t a x se rvic e fe e ” in the Se ttle m e nt C ost B o okle t did not pe rm it W e l ls Fa

rgo to c ha rge him a fe e c onne c te d

to the pa ym e nt of prope rty taxe s. In its m otion to dism iss, W e lls Fa

rgo a s se rte d tha

t its pra c t ic e s c om

plie d with its inte

rpre tation of thede finition of “tax se rvic e fe e .” In m aking its de c ision, them a jority im p rope rly a c c e pts W e lls Fa

rgo’ s argum e nts a

nd de c la re s tha t W e lls Fa

rgo ha s a c te d in a c c orda

nc e with its inte rpre tations of wha

te ve r obliga

tions the“ tax se rvic e fe e ” provision im pose s upon it. It c ite s no pre c e de nt de fining thete rm “ tax se rvic e fe e . ” It e nga ge s in no sta tutory c o nstruc tion of a lle ge d sta tue s or re gula

t ions nor a

ny inte rpre tation of a lle ge d c o ntra c tua l te rm s. On this lim ite d re c ord a

nd c onside ring our role at the
m otion to dism

iss pha se , the m a

jority offe rs no re a son tha

t W e lls Fa

rgo’ s inte rpre tation of theSe ttle m e n t C ost B ookle t is c orre c t a s a m atte r of la

w. Apply ing the sta

nda rd of re vie wfor a

m otion to dism

iss, Gutie rre z ’ s inte rpre tation is m o re tha

n e qua lly pla u sible . 

# F IL ED APR 06 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALSThe distric t c ourt took the re a sone d a

pproa c h to the re solution of this c a se . Gutie rre z c ite s no a

uthority for the proposition tha

t the Se ttle m e n t C ost B ookle t c ontrols W e lls Fa

rgo’ s c onduc t. Gutie rre z ha s ne ve r artic ulate d a le ga l the ory

a s to why W e lls Fa rgo’ s pra c tic e s m

ust c om ply with thede finition of “taxse rvic e fe e ” in the Se ttle m e nt C ost B ookle t. Gutie rre z a ba ndone d his bre a c h of c o ntra c t c la im on a ppe a l , so he c annot a

rgue tha t the Se ttle m e nt C o st B ookle t be c am e pa

rt of his c ontra c t with W e lls Fa

rgo. Gutie rre z ha s not a lle ge d tha t W e l ls Fa

rgo’ s c o nduc t wa s ille ga l. Inste a d, Gutie rre z ’ s c om pla int a ssum e s tha

t the Se ttle m e n t C ost B ookle t is le g a lly binding on W e lls Fa rgo, a s if it we re a

binding re gula

tion of the R e a l Esta te Se ttle m e nt Proc e dure s Ac t. Howe ve r, the Ac t’ s gove rning re gula tions spe c ific a lly

disc l a im any re g ulatory

role for the Se ttle m e nt C ost B ookle t. S e e 24 C .F.R . § 3500.4(a)(2) (stating there gula tions unde r the gove rning sta tute “ s ha ll not inc l ude the spe c i a l inform ation bookle t pre sc ribe d by the Se c re ta

ry ” ). 1 The re fore , Gutie rre z fa ile d

to sta te a pla usible c la im

for re lie f, and the distric t c ourt did not err whe n it dism

isse d Gutie rre z ’ s c om

p la int.

1 This provision ha s sinc e be e n re c odifie d at 12 C .F.R . § 1024.4.