N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT KITTY YINLING ZHANG, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C OUNTR

YW IDE HOM E LOANS, INC ; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-15952 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-03475-NC 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 Natha na e l M . C ousins, M a gistra t e Judge , Pre siding ** Subm itte d April 22, 2015 *** B e fore : GOODW IN, B YB EE, a nd C HRISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Kitty Yinling Zha

ng a ppe a l s pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dism issing her a c t ion a lle g ing fe de ra l a nd sta te la w c la i m s in c o nne c tion with



# F IL ED MAY01 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. ** The pa

rtie s c onse nte d to proc e e d be fore a m a gistra te judge . Se e28 U.S.C . § 636(c ).

*** 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 eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).fore c losure proc e e dings. W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e

re vie w de novo, a

nd m ay a ffirm

on a ny ground supporte d by

the re c ord. Thompson v . Paul , 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th C ir. 2008). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Zha

ng’ s R e a l Esta

te Se ttle m e nt Pra c tic e s Ac t (“ RESPA” ) c la i m a lle ging ina de quate disc losure s, be c a use Zha ng fa ile d to a lle g e fa c ts suffic ie nt to show tha t a ny de fe nda nt fa ile d to providea re quire d disc l osure with re spe c t to thetra nsfe r of a loa n. S e e 12 U.S.C . § 2605(a)- (c ) (se tting forth disc losure s tha t m ust be m a de re g arding thetra n sfe r of a loa n). Dism issa l of Zha

n g’ s RESPA c la i m

a lle ging ina de quate re sponse s to he r Qua lifie d Writte n R e q

u e st wa s prope r be c a

use Zha n g fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts suffic i e nt to show tha

t she suffe re d a

ny a c tua l da m a ge s a s a

re s ult of thea lle ge d viola tion. Se e12 U.S.C . § 2605(f)(1)(A) (a l lowing re c ove ry of “ a c tua l da m a ge s” ). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Zha

ng’ s Fa i r De bt C olle c tion Pra c tic e s Ac t c la im be c a use , e ve n a s sum ing tha

t de fe nda nt R e c o nTrust wa s a

“ de bt c olle c tor” and wa s “ c o lle c ting” a de bt, re c o rds subje c t to judic ia l notic e show tha t R e c onTrust provide d Zha ng a ll sta tutorily re quire d inform ation. Se e15 U.S.C . § 1692g(b) (se tting forth information a de bt c olle c t or m

ust providewhe n a c onsum e r dispute s a

de bt or se e ks inform ation re ga rding theorigina l c re ditor); se e also C lark v . C apital C re dit &C olle c tion Se rv

s., Inc . , 460 F.3d 1162, 1173-74 (9th 1 2 - 1 5 9 5 2 2C ir. 2006) (“ [V] e rific at ion of a de bt involve s nothing more tha n the de bt c olle c tor c onfirm i ng in writing tha

t the am ount be ing de m ande d is wha t the c re ditor is c la im ing is owe d.” (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om i tte d)). W e do not c onside r m atte rs not spe c ific a lly an d distinc tly

ra i se d a nd a rgue d in the ope ning brie f, or a

rgum e nts a

n d a lle g ations ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Se ePadge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). AFFIRM E D.

1 2 - 1 5 9 5 2 3