N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT FANYA YOUNG,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. THIRD AND M ISSION ASSOC IATES, LLC , DB A The Param ount; R ELATED PR OPER TY M ANAGEM ENT; RELATED C ALIFOR

NIA; KIM B ALL TIRFY & ST. JOHN LLP; R ELATED C O. INC ., De fe nda

n ts-Appe lle e s. Nos. 14-16926 15-15108 D.C . No. 3:14-c v-03627-W HA
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 W illia m Alsup, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

M ay 15, 2017 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# F IL ED MAY25 2017 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.

* * 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 e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).B e fore : W . FLETC HER and TALLM AN, C irc uit Judge s , a nd HUC K, *** Distric t Judge
. Fany a

Young a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l of he r c om pla int a ga inst De fe nda nts Third &M i ssion Assoc iat e s (“ TM A” ), R e lat e d Prope rty C o . (“ R e l ate d” ), an d Kim

b a ll, Tire y

& St. John, LLP (“ KTS” ) (c o lle c t ive ly ,

“ De fe nda nts” ), and the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of he r m otion for sa nc tions a ga inst KTS. Young a lso a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s e x e c ution of he r te m pora ry re stra i ning orde r bond a

nd a ward of $763 to TMA. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a

nd we a ffirm
. 1. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing Young’ s m otion for sa nc tions. C

oote r & Ge l l

v . Hartmarx C

orp. , 496 U.S. 384, 409 (1990). Young fa ile d to c o m

ply with the“ stric t proc e d

ura l re quire m e nts” to obta in
sa nc tions under R

ule 11 be c a

use she did not serve a

m otion on De fe nda

nts a nd provide the m

with a t le a st twe nty -one da

y s to re tra c t the ple a ding be fore se e king
sa nc tions from

the c ourt. R adc liffe

v . Rainbow

C onstr. C o . , 254 F.3d 772, 789 (9th C ir. 2001). 2. Young’ s c om

pla int fa ile d to sta

te a c la im and wa s a

ppropria te l y dism isse d. Se e C

e rv ante s v . C o untryw i deHomeLoans, Inc
. , 656 F.3d 1034, 1040

* * * The Honora

ble Pa ul C . Huc k, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for Southe rn Florida , sitting by de signa tion. 2(9th C ir. 2011) (we re v ie w de novo a distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of a m otion to dism

iss unde r Fe d. R . C iv. P. 12(b)(6)). First, Young a lle ge d a

c l a im unde r the Fa ir C re dit R e p orting Ac t (“ FC R A” ). He r c om p la int, howe ve r, doe s not ide ntify whic h provision of the FC R A De fe nda nts a re a lle ge d to ha

ve viola te d , but inste a d c ite s a

provision of the

Fa ir De bt C olle c tion Pra c tic e s Ac t, 15 U.S.C . § 1692e . The c om pla i nt la c ks a

ny pla u sible a lle gations tha

t De fe n da nts re porte d he r de bt to a

ny third pa

rtie s. M ore o ve r, Young ha s forfe i te d a ny c ha lle nge to the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l of he r FC R A c la im s be c a

use she fa ile d to offe r any argum e nt in he r ope ning brie f on
a ppe a l. Smith v
. Marsh , 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th C ir. 1999). Se c ond, Young ha s fa ile d to sta te a c la i m for re lie f for viola

tions of De pa rtm e nt of Housing a

nd Urba n De ve l opm e nt re g ulations a s c odifie d at 24 C .F.R . § 247. Young’ s proffe re d e xhibits do not “ a llow[] the c ourt to dra w the
re a s ona ble infe re nc e ,” Ashc roft v . Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), tha t he r unit
wa s pa rt of a “ subsidiz e d proje c t” within the m e aning of 24 C .F.R . § 247.2 a nd thus tha t TM A wa s subje c t

to the re g ulations se t

forth in 24 C .F.R . § 247. Third, Young ha s fa ile d to sta te a c la im unde r the Fa ir De bt C olle c tion Pra c tic e s Ac t (“ FDC PA” ). Young c l a im s a n attorne y for KTS a

nd a lle g e d a ge nt of TM A, withhe ld or provide d m isle a ding inform at ion re ga rding Young’ s outsta

nding
3ba la

nc e and im

prope rly a

pplie d la te fe e s, a nd tha t De fe nda nts viola te d 15 U.S.C . § 1692d. Young’ s c om

pla int doe s not inc lude any fa c tua l a lle gations tha

t c ould be
c onstrue d a s ha

ra ssm e nt in viola

tion of 15 U.S.C
. § 1692d. Nor doe s Young pla u sibly a l le ge m isre pre se ntations by De fe nda nts. The e xhibits a

tta c h e d to Young’ s c om

pla int fa il to e v inc e the disc re pa n c i e s she a lle ge s a

n d in fa c t
c ontra dic t som e of the sta te m e nts in he r c om

p la int. Young’ s c om

pla int a lso fa ils to inc lude a lle gations to support he r c la im tha t TM A a c te d im

p rope rly in im posing late fe e s. 3. The distric t c ourt did not err in e xe c uting Young’ s bond. The distric t
c ourt m a i nta ine d jurisdic tion to “ suspe nd, m odify , re store , or gra n t a n injunc tion on te rm s for bond or other te rm s tha t se c ure the opposing pa

rty ’ s rights”during the pe nde nc y of Young’ s a

ppe a l. Fe d. R . C iv. P. 62(c ). TM A wa s “ w rongfully
e njoine d” from

e vic ting Young betwe e n August 12, 2014, whe n the distric t c ourt issue d a te m pora ry re stra ining orde r, and Se pte m be r 4, 2014, whe n the distric t
c ourt lifte d the orde r and de nie d Young’ s m otion for a pre lim ina

ry injunc tion. N inte ndo of Am., Inc . v . Le w is Galoob Toy s , Inc
. , 16 F.3d 1032, 1036 (9th C ir. 1994). TM A wa s the re fore e ntitle d to “prova ble dam a g e s,” whic h

the distric t c ourt
re a s ona bly c onc lude d e qua le d

one m onth’ s re nt, or $763. Se e id
.

44. Young’ s m otions to “ transm it phy sic a l a

nd doc um e nta

ry e xhibits”[Dkt. #24, 30] are DENIED. Low ry v . Barnhart , 329 F.3d 1019, 1024-25 (9th C ir. 2003) (a ppe l lat e re vie wis limite d to there c ord be fore the distric t c ourt). AFFIRM E D
.

5