NOT FOR PUB LIC ATION UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
LEONAR

D TYSON; M AR

Y ANN ) No. 15-17016 TYSON, ) ) D.C . No. 5:12-c v-03766-HR L Pla intiffs-Appe l la

nts, )

) M EM OR

A NDUM * v. ) ) TD SER VIC ES C OM PANY; U.S. ) B ANK N.A., ) ) De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s , ) )

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Howa rd R . Lloy d, M a gistra

t e Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

April 17, 2017 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ a

nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd C URIEL, *** Distric t Judge
. Le ona

rd Ty son a

ppe a ls thedistric t

c o urt’ s judgm e nt in fa

vor of T.D. Se rvic e 

# F IL ED
MAY03 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 ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** T he pa ne l una nim ously finds this c a se suita

ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honora

ble Gonz a l o P. C urie l, Unite d State s Distric t Judgefor the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.C om

pa ny (“ T.D. Se rvic e ” ) and U.S. B ank Na tiona l Assoc iation, individua lly and
a s Truste e for C he vy

C ha s e Funding LLC M ortga ge B a c ke d C e rtific ate s Se rie s 2005-C Trust a

nd a s Truste e for C C B Libor Se rie s 2005 C Trust (c olle c tive ly

“ U.S. B ank” ). W e a ffirm
. (1) Ty son a s se rts tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d whe n it gra nte d T.D. Se rvic e ’ s m otion to dism

iss 1 T y son’ s c la im

tha t T.D. Se rvic e viola

t e d the Fa ir De bt C olle c tion Pra c tic e s Ac t (“ FDC PA” ) 2 whe n, a s the truste e unde r a de e d of trust, it took steps to e nforc e the provisions of tha t de e d of trust. W e do not a gre e . Ty son’ s c la im s a

re ba se d upon a lle ge d viola tions of c e rta in se c tions of the FDC PA. Se e15 U.S.C . §§ 1692e , 1692g a nd 1692f(6). 3 Howe ve r, T.D. Se rvic e is
m e re ly a se c urity e nforc e r and, the re fore , is not subje c t to theprovisions of § 1692eor § 1692g be c a

use it is not a

de bt c olle c tor unde r the ge ne ra l de finition. 4 Se e H o v . Re c onTrust C

o ., N A , 840 F.3d 618, 620–22 (9th C i r. 2016); se ealso Dow e r s v . N ationstar Mortg., LLC

, 852 F.3d 964, 969–70 (9th C ir. 2017). M ore o ve r, while T.D. Se rvic e “ is a de bt c olle c tor unde r the na rrow de finition”in

1 Se eFe d . R
. C iv. P. 12(b)(6).
2 15 U.S.C . §§ 1692-1692p. 3 He re a fte r, a ll re fe re nc e s to se c tion num be rs a re to se c tions of Title 15 of the Unite d State s C ode unle s s othe rwise sta te d.
4 Se e§ 1692a (6); se ealso § 1692a (5). 2§ 1692f(6), tha t se c t ion would only

“prote c t a

c onsum e r a ga i nst . . . a

busive pra c tic e s of a

se c urity e n forc e r.” Ho , 840 F.3d a t 622. He re the pra c tic e s tha t T.D. Se rvic e e nga ge d in we re stric tly in a c c orda

nc e with the la

w of C a lifornia

re ga rding the n onjudic ia l fore c l osure d utie s of a truste e unde r a

de e d of trust. S

e e id. at 622–24. W e re c o gniz e tha t Ty son a sse rts tha

t T.D. Se rvic e did not ta

ke ste ps to substa ntia te the b e ne fic ia

ry ’ s right to fore c l ose on Ty son’ s prope rty , but tha t is not
a duty tha t C a lifornia

im pose s upon truste e s. Se e Bianc alana v . T.D. Se rv . C o. , 56 C a l. 4th 807, 819, 300 P.3d 518, 525, 156 C a l. R ptr. 3d 437, 446 (2013); se ealso C a l. C iv. C ode §§ 2920.5(a) (a truste e is not a m ortga ge se rvic e r), 2924.17 (m ortga g e se rvic e rs ha

v e a duty to substa ntia te ); c f. Dow e rs , 852 F.3d a

t 967, 971 (holding c la im s spe lle d out a ga inst m ortga ge se rvic e r in Ne va da ). (2) Ty son a l so a s se rts tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d whe n it gra nte d U.S. B ank’ s m otion to dism

iss 5 Ty son’ s c l a im

tha t U.S. B ank is re sponsiblefor viola tions of theTruth in Lending Ac t (“ TILA” ) 6 be c a use it is thea ssigne e of the origina l le nde r, whic h did not give Ty son a c orre c t loa n disc losure sta

te m e nt, 7 and

5 Se eFe d . R
. C iv. P. 12(b)(6).
6 §§ 1601-1667f.
7 Se e§ 1641(e ); se ealso § 1639(a)(2). 3be c a

use it did not give

Ty son notic e of the tra

n sfe r of the loa

n to itse l f. 8 W e disa gre e be c a

use Ty son’ s c la im

is ba rre d by the sta tute lim iting a c tions under TILA. Se e § 1640(e ). That sta tute lim ite d the tim e to c om m e nc e this a c tion to one y e ar. Id. 9 Tha

t tim e ha s long sinc e pa sse d— the loa n wa s m a de in 2005 a

nd the transfe r took pla c e by

2009, but the

a c tion wa s not file d until 2012. Ty son a rgue s tha t he c ould still a sse rt “ a

viola t ion of” TILA “ a s a

m atte r of de fe nse by

re c oupm e nt or se t-off.” § 1640(e ). Of c o urse , a s with a ny de fe nse , tha

t
m ust be a sse rte d “ in a

n a c t ion to c o lle c t the de bt whic h wa s brought”a ga inst him
. Id. ; se ealso Be ac h , 523 U.S. a t 417–18, 118 S. C t. at 1412. B ut this c a se is not a n
a c tion brought to e

nforc e the de bt a ga i nst him in wholeor in pa rt. If a n a c tion of that ty p e is brought, he

c an a s se rt his re c oupm e nt or se t-off de fe n se in tha t a c tion

“ e x c e pt a s othe rwise provide d by State la w.” § 1640(e ). The distric t c ourt did not
e rr. 1 0 AFFIRM ED.

8 Se e§ 1641(g).
9 Ha d Ty son de sire d to re sc i nd, theright to do so expire d a fte r thre e y e ars. Se e§ 1635(f); se e also Be ac h v . Oc w e n Fe d. Bank , 523 U.S. 410, 415–19, 118 S. C t. 1408, 1411–13, 140 L. Ed. 2d 566 (1998); K ing v . C alifornia , 784 F.2d 910, 913 (9th C i r. 1986).

1 0 The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion whe n it dism isse d without le ave to a m e nd; it did give

Ty son a n opportunity

to a m e nd, a nd he did not ta

ke a dva nta ge of tha

t. Se e Zuc c o Partne rs, LLC v . Digimarc C orp. , 552 F.3d 981, 989 (9th C ir. 2009). 4