N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT C YNTHIA M AR C US,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. NATIONSTAR

M OR TGAGE LLC , DB A M r. C oope r; DOES, 1 through 20, inc lusive , De fe nda

n ts-Appe lle e s, and W ELLS FAR GO B ANK N.A,

De fe nda n t. No. 19-56288 D.C . No. 2:19-c v-01747-PA-FFM M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Pe rc y Ande rson, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h

10, 2021 Subm ission Va c ate d M arc h 22, 2021 R e subm itte d M ay

11, 2022 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# FIL ED MAY11 2022 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.B e fore : M c K EOW N, IKUTA, a

nd B RESS, C irc uit Judge s. Partia l Disse nt by

Judge IKUTA. C ynthia M arc us tim e ly

a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of he r c om pla i nt in fa vor of Na tionsta r M o rtga ge LLC (Nationsta r). The distric t c ourt ha d jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1331, a nd we have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. The distric t c ourt did not err in dism issing M arc us’ s c la im s unde r the C a lifornia Hom e owne r B ill of Rights (HB OR ), C a l. C iv. C ode §§ 2923.6, 2923.7. C ivil C ode se c tion 2923.6 prohibits a m ortga ge se rvic e r from

re c ording a

notic e of de fa ult whilethe le n de r’ s “ c om ple te a pplic at ion for a

first lie n loa

n m o d ific ation” is pe nding. The c o m

pla i nt doe s not suffic ie n t ly a l le ge tha

t M arc u s subm itte d a c om ple t e loa n m odific a tion a

pplic ation. Se e C a l. C iv. C ode § 2923.6(h). M arc us a lle ge s tha

t she subm itte d the re quire d pa pe rwork to Na

tionsta r on August 25, 2016, but doe s not de sc ribe the inform ation Na tionsta r re que ste d or the inform a t ion she provide d. In a ddition, M arc u s e lse whe re a c knowle dge d in he r c om pla i nt tha t Nationsta

r “ se nt pla intiff a

le tte r on [or] around August 25, 2016, a lle ging tha

t she still ne e de d t o se nd a dditiona l doc um e nts in orde r for he r loa n m odific a tion a

pplic at ion to bec om

ple te .” M arc us doe s not a lle ge she took a ny follow-up a c tion in re sponse to this le tte r. M arc us inste a d sta te s tha t she “ i s

2inform e d

and be l i e ve s, a

nd the re fore sta

te s, tha t Nationsta

r would se nd out suc h boile rplate le tte rs so tha

t it did not ha

ve to c om ply with there quire m e nt tha

t it c e a se fore c losure a c tivitie s onc e an a pplic ation is c om

p le te . B ut this c onc lusory a lle gation, m a de only

on inform ation a

nd be lie f and without supporting fa c tua l a lle gations, is a “ nak e d a sse rtion[] de void of furthe r fa c tua l e nha n c e m e n t,” and is the re fore insuffic ie n t. Ashc roft v . Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quota tions om i tte d). The c om pla int a lso m a de a m e re c onc lusory a lle gation tha

t Nationsta

r did not provideM arc us with a single point of c onta c t, whic h, without more , is ina d e quate to sta

te a c la i m unde r se c tion 2923.7. Se e id. at 679. The distric t c ourt did not err in dism issing M arc us’ s c la im unde r the R e a l Esta te Se ttle m e nt Proc e dure s Ac t (RESPA), 12 C . F.R . § 1024.41(f)(2). The c om pla i nt insuffic ie ntly

a lle ge d tha

t M a rc us subm itte d a

c om ple t e a pplic ation a

nd that she inc urre d a c tua l da

m a g e s a s a

re sult of theRESPA viola tion. Se e 12 U.S.C . § 2605(f)(1)(A). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d M arc us’ s ne glige nc e c la im s be c a use “ a le nde r owe s no tort duty

sounding in ge

ne ra l ne g lige nc e princ iple s to ‘ proc e ss, re vie w a n d re spond c are fully an d c om ple te l y to’ the borrowe r’ s a

pplic ation.” She e n v . W

e lls Fargo Bank

, N .A. , 12 C a l. 5th 905, 948 (2022). W hile HB OR 3c re ate s sta

tutory dutie s c onc e rning c e rta in m odific ation a pplic ations, it doe s not c re ate a c om m o n-la w duty , a nd a s sta te d a b o ve , the sta

tutory c la im fa ils. And be c a use M arc us did not a

ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of he r c la im for ne glige nt m isre p re se n tation, we do not c onside r he r a rgum e nt tha

t he r ne glige nt m isre pre se ntation c l a im

would c om e within the

e xc e ption to She e n . The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d M arc us’ s c la im s for bre a c h of c ontra c t, bre a c h of the im

plie d c o ve na

nt of good fa ith a

n d fa ir de a ling, a

nd prom issory e stoppe l. Na

tionsta r’ s a lle ge d prom ise to c onside r M arc u s’ s loa n m odific at ion a pplic a tion upon dism

i ssa l of he r la

wsuit wa s ne ithe r suffic ie ntly de finite to c re ate a c ontra c t nor suffic ie ntly

“ c le ar and una

m biguous to support a

prom issory e stoppe l.” Se e Danie ls v . Se le c t Portfolio Se rv ic ing, Inc . , 246 C a l. App. 4th 1150, 1174, 1179 (2016). Nor did the c om pla int sta te a c la im for bre a c h of the de e d of trust be c a use M a rc us he rse lf a lle ge s tha

t she fa ile d to pe rform

unde r the de e d of trust whe n she did not m ake loa n pa y m e nts, a nd pe rform anc e unde r the c o n tra c t is a ne c e s sa ry e l e m e nt of a

bre a c h of c ontra c t c la im . Se e id. at 1173. B e c a use M arc us ha s not sta

te d a bre a c h of c ontra c t c la im

for the re a sons e xpla ine d a bove , he r c la im for bre a c h of the c ove na

nt of good fa ith a

nd fa ir de a l ing a lso fa ils. Se e C arma De v s., Inc . v . Marathon De v . C al., Inc . , 2 C a l. 4th 342, 373 (1992); Dure l l v . Sharp He althc are , 183 C a l. App. 4th 1350, 1369 (2010). 4The distric t c ourt did not err in dism issing M arc us’ s c la im for prom issory fraud be c a

use the c o m

pla i nt did not alle ge tha

t Nationsta

r ha d m a de a

prom ise to M arc us, se e Lazar v . Supe r ior C t. , 12 C a l. 4th 631, 638 (1996), or ple a d this c la im with pa rtic ula rity a s re quire d by

R ule 9(b) of the Fe de ra l R

ule s of C ivil Proc e dure , se e E be id e x re l. Unite d State

s v . Lungw itz , 616 F.3d 993, 998 (9th C i r. 2010). B e c a use M arc u s fa ils to ple a d he r othe r c a use s of a c tion, thedistric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d he r de rivative c la im s unde r C a lifornia ’ s Unfa ir C om pe tition Law, C a l. B u s. & Prof. C ode § 17200, a nd for de c l ara tory

re l ie f. Frie dman v . AARP, Inc . , 855 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th C i r. 2017). AFFIRM E D.

5Marc u s v . Bank of Ame ric a , 19-56288 IKUTA, C irc uit Judge , disse nting in pa rt: I disse nt from

the m a jority ’ s c onc lusion tha

t M arc us fa i le d to ple a d c l a im s unde r the C a lifornia

Hom e owne r B ill of Rights, C a l . C iv. C ode §§ 2923.6, 2923.7, and the re fore would a lso hold tha t the distric t c ourt im

prope rly dism isse d M arc us’ s de rivative c la im s unde r C a lifornia ’ s Unfa ir C om pe tition La

w, C a l. B us. & Prof. C ode § 17200, a

nd for de c la

ra t ory re lie f. Frie dman v . AARP, Inc . , 855 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th C ir. 2017). M arc us’ s c om

p l a int pla u sibly a lle g e d tha

t she subm itte d a

c o m ple te a pplic a tion to Na

tionsta r. The c om

pla int a l le ge d

tha t Nationsta

r’ s la wy e r inform e d M arc us “ of the doc um e nts she ne e de d to submit in orde r for he r a pplic ation to be c om ple t e ,” M arc us subm itte d those doc um e nts, a nd the la wy e r told he r that he r a pplic a tion wa s “ in re vie w, whic h m e ant tha t pla intiff’ s a

pplic ation wa s c o m

ple te .” Drawing a ll re a sona

ble infe re nc e s in fa

vor of the pla intiff, Ushe r v . C ity of Los Ange le s , 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th C ir. 1987), thec om pla int pla usibly a lle g e d tha

t M arc us’ s a

pplic a tion wa s c om

ple te for purpose s of se c tion 2923.6(c ) of the C a lifornia C ivil C ode . Although the m a

jority foc use s on the c om pla int’ s sta

te m e nt tha

t Nationsta

r late r se nt a

le tte r c la im ing tha

t M arc us “ still ne e de d to se nd a dditiona l doc um e nts,”



# FIL ED MAY11 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

1the c om

pla i nt a lso a lle ge d tha

t M arc us “ ha d a lre a dy

se nt the re que ste d doc um e nts” and tha t “ Nationsta r would se nd out suc h boile rplate le tte rs so tha t it did not ha

ve to c o m ply with there quire m e nt tha

t it c e a se fore c losure a c tivitie s onc e an a pplic a tion is c om

ple te .” C a lifornia

c ourts do not give

e ffe c t to a le n de r’ s ba d fa ith c l a im that a

loa n a pplic a tion is inc om

ple te . Se e Valbue na v . Oc w e n Loan Se rv ic ing, LLC, 237 C a l . App. 4th 1267, 1274–75 (2015) (holding tha t a le n de r’ s ba d fa ith c onduc t doe s not re nde r a borrowe r’ s a

pplic ation inc om

ple te ). B y

fa iling to ta ke the c om

pla int’ s a lle gat i ons in thelight m ost fa vora ble to M arc us, the m a jority m isa pplie s our pre c e de nt a

nd wrongfully

re je c ts M arc u s’ s HB OR

c la im .

2