N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT PAM ELA C HYB A, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. GREEN TR

EE SER V IC ING, LLC , AKA Gre e n Tre e , AKA Gre e n Tre e , LLC , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-55406 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-02530-H-WM C M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia M arily n L. Huff, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 18, 2014 ** B e fore : LEAVY, FISHER , a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Pam e la C hy ba a ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r dism issing her a c tion a lle ging viola

tions of theFa ir De bt C olle c tion Pra c tic e s Ac t (“ FDC PA” ), the Fa ir C re dit R e porting Ac t (“ FC R A” ), and theR o se ntha l Fa ir De bt C o lle c tion



# FIL ED DEC 4 2014 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

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).Pra c tic e s Ac t (“ RFDC PA” ). W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e

re vie w de novo. Doev . Abbott Labs. , 571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th C ir. 2009). W e m ay a ffirm on a ny ground supporte d by

the re c ord. C

ampbe ll v . W

ash. De p’t of Soc . & He alth Se rv

s. , 671 F.3d 837, 842 n.4 (9th C ir. 2011). W e a ffirm . Dism issa l of C hy

b a ’ s first a

nd se c ond c a

use s of a c tion under the FDC PA, 15 U.S.C . §§ 1692e (10), 1692g, a n d fourth c a

use of a c t ion unde r the R

FDC PA, C a lifornia C ivil C ode se c tion 1788.11, wa s prope r be c a use C hy ba fa ile d to a lle ge fa c t s suffic ie nt to show tha t Gre e n Tre e c onta c te d C hy ba , whic h would re quire sta tutory notic e , or tha

t Gre e n Tre e use d a

ny fa l se re pre se ntation in c onne c tion with thec olle c tion of a

de bt. Se eAshc roft v . Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“ Thre a dba

re re c ita l s of thee le m e nts of a c a use of a c tion, supporte d by m e re c onc lusory

sta t e m e nts, do not suffic e .” ); Riggs v . Probe r & Raphae l , 681 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th C ir. 2012) (“ The [RFDC PA] m i m ic s or inc o rporate s by re fe re nc e the FDC PA’ s re quire m e nts . . . a nd m ake s a

va ila ble the FDC PA’ s re m e die s for viola tions.” ). Dism issa l of C hy

b a ’ s third c a

use of a c tion under the FC R A wa s prope r be c a use , in C hy

b a ’ s De c e m

be r 29, 2011 lette r, whic h C hy b a re fe re nc e d in he r c om pla i nt, C hy

ba a dm itte d that Gre e n Tre e wa s atte m pting to c olle c t a

de bt, a pe rm issiblepurposefor a c c e ssing a c onsum e r’ s c re dit report. Se e 15 U.S.C . 1 3 - 5 5 4 0 6 2§ 1681b(a)(3)(A); P intos v . Pac . C re ditors Ass’n , 605 F.3d 665, 674-76 (9th C ir. 2010) (disc ussing thetwo re quire m e nts for e sta blishing perm i ssiblepurposeunde r § 1681b(a)(3)(A)); se e also Sprew e ll v . Golde n State W arriors , 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th C ir. 2001) (“ The c ourt ne e d not . . . ac c e pt a s true a l le gations tha t c ontra dic t m atte rs prope rly

subje c t to judic ia l notic e or by e xhibit.” ). AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 5 5 4 0 6 3