AQUINO v. PNC MORTGAGE (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Luz Aquino appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), Fair Credit Reporting Act, and state law claims related to a mortgage on real property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 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 Aquino’s FDCPA claim against PNC Bank, N.A. because Aquino failed to allege facts sufficient to show that PNC was a debt collector under the FDCPA. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(F)(ii) (excluding from the definition of debt collector a creditor collecting debts on its behalf); Schlegel v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 720 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2013) (plaintiff “must plead factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that [the defendant] is a debt collector” (citation internal quotation marks omitted) ).

The district court properly dismissed Aquino’s FDCPA claim against Clear Recon Corporation because Aquino failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d-1692g. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (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) ).

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.