BUSHLOW v. MTC FINANCIAL INC (2019)

MEMORANDUM ***

David Eric Bushlow appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) 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, 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)).

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 & Holthus, LLP, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 1029, 1038, 203 L.Ed.2d 390 (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, it does so only through Section 1692f(6)”).

AFFIRMED.