Court Opinion

ID: 4401599
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-05-29 20:00:38.376459+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:52:26.165537
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 29 2019
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID ERIC BUSHLOW,                             No.    18-16687

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 5:17-cv-06771-VKD

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MTC FINANCIAL, INC., DBA Trustee
Corp, Inc.,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of California
               Virginia K. DeMarchi, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

                            Submitted May 21, 2019***

Before:      THOMAS, Chief Judge, LEAVY and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

      David Eric Bushlow appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action alleging Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”)

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
            The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
      ***
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
claims against the foreclosure trustee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Kwan v. SanMedica Int’l, 854 F.3d 1088,

1093 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Bushlow’s FDCPA claim under 15

U.S.C. § 1692f(6) because Bushlow failed to allege facts sufficient to show that

defendant’s conduct was unfair or unconscionable. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6)

(prohibiting unfair or unconscionable conduct in enforcing a security interest);

Dowers v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 852 F.3d 964, 971 (9th Cir. 2017) (discussing

protections for borrowers set forth in § 1692f(6)); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient

factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

      The district court properly dismissed Bushlow’s remaining FDCPA claims

because defendant is not a debt collector except under 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6). See

Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holtus, LLP, 139 S. Ct. 1029, 1038 (2019) (“[B]ut for §

1692f(6), those who engage in only nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings are not

debt collectors within the meaning of the [FDCPA].”); Dowers, 852 F.3d at 970

(explaining that “while the FDCPA regulates security interest enforcement activity,

                                            2                                      18-16687
it does so only through Section 1692f(6)”).

      AFFIRMED.

                                         3    18-16687