Case Name: Conrad SCARRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-03
Citations: 698 F. App'x 592
Docket Number: No. 16-16356 Non-Argument Calendar
Parties: Conrad SCARRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 698
Pages: 592–593

Head Matter:
Conrad SCARRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-16356 Non-Argument Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
(October 3, 2017)
Brian Keith Korte, Korte & Wortman, PA, West Palm Beach, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Kimberly S. Mello, Laura J. Bassini, Greenberg Traurig, PA, Tampa, FL, Denise Michelle Rosenthal, Michele L. Stock-er, Greenberg Traurig, PA, Fort Lauder-dale, FL, for Defendant-Appellee. .
Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Conrad Scarry appeals the District Court's order dismissing his initial complaint for failing to state a claim for relief and its order denying for futility his motion for leave to amend the complaint. The initial complaint alleged that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo") did not adequately respond to Korte & Wortman's request for information under 12 C.F.R. § 1024.36(d) (2) (i) (A) because it failed to provide the telephone number of the entity that owns Scarry's loan. The proposed amended complaint repeated this claim and added that Wells Fargo also violated 12 C.F.R. § 1024.36(d)(2)(i)(B) by not adequately responding to Scarry's request for information related to loss-mitigation efforts and invoices related to property inspections, violated ' 12 C.F.R. § 1024.36(d)(l)(i) by failing to investigate the missing phone number, and violated 12 C.F.R. § 1024.36(f)(2) by failing to send a notification of noncompliance.
Loan servicers are not required to provide a loan owner's telephone number under 12 C.F.R. § 1024.36(d)(2)(i)(A). Mejia v. Omen Loan Servicing, LLC, — Fed. Appx.-, 2017 WL 3396563 (11th Cir. Aug. 8, 2017). Nor must they furnish information unrelated to "servicing," like the loss-mitigation and property-inspection information requested here. See Hudgins v. Seterus, Inc., 192 F.Supp.3d 1343, 1347-53 (S.D. Fla. 2016). Accordingly, Wells Fargo had no duty to investigate the information's absence or send a noncompliance notification.
AFFIRMED.