Fazio v. Wash. Mut. Bank, 14-16336
Decision Date | 26 February 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 14-16336,14-16336 |
Parties | MICHAEL A. FAZIO; KIM M. FAZIO, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, F.A.; et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM*Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Michael A. Fazio and Kim M. Fazio appeal pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing their action alleging Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and other federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of CivilProcedure 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 the Fazios' FDCPA claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692e because the Fazios failed to allege facts sufficient to show that JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. was a "debt collector" and the alleged communications were attempts to collect a "debt" under the FDCPA. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(F)(ii) ( ); Ho v. ReconTrust Co., 858 F.3d 568, 572 (9th Cir. 2017) (); Dowers v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 852 F.3d 964, 970 (9th Cir. 2017) ( ).
The district court properly dismiss the Fazios' FDCPA claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6) because the Fazios failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants' conduct was unfair or unconscionable. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6); Ho, 858 F.3d at 573 ( ); Dowers, 852 F.3d at 971 ( ).
The district court properly dismissed the Fazios' Truth in Lending Act claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g) because this provision was not enacted until 2009, after the transfer or assignment at issue, and this provision does not apply retroactively. See Talaie v. Wells Fargo Bank, 808 F.3d 410, 411 (9th Cir. 2015) ( ).
The district court properly dismissed the Fazios' Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") claim because the Fazios failed to allege facts sufficient to show a RICO enterprise or predicate act. See United Brotherhood of Carpenters v. Building and Construction Trades Dep't, 770 F.3d 834, 837 (9th Cir. 2014) ( ).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the Fazios' declaratory relief claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2201; Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 289-90 (1995) (standard of review).
The district court properly dismissed the Fazios' claims against the defendants who did not move to dismiss the complaint. See Silverton v. Dep't of Treasury, 644 F.2d 1341, 1345 (9th Cir. 1981) ().
The district court did not abuse its discretion by taking judicial notice of thecontents of the Purchase and Assumption Agreement. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2) ( ); United States v. Woods, 335 F.3d 993, 1000-01 (9th Cir. 2003) ( ); see also Swartz v. KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756, 763 (9th Cir. 2007) ( ).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Fazios leave to file an amended complaint because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) ( ).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
*. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**. The panel unanimously concludes this...
To continue reading
Request your trial