PAUL POUTCHEU YOSSA V. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., No. 12-17704 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 26 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PAUL EMMANUEL POUTCHEU YOSSA, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 12-17704 D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00023-MCEGGH v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS INC; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 13, 2018** Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. This matter has been stayed since June 27, 2017, pending issuance of the mandate in Ho v. ReconTrust Co., N.A., No. 10-56884, or further order of the court. We hereby lift the stay. Paul Emmanuel Poutcheu Yossa appeals pro se from the district court’s * 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 case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). judgment dismissing his action alleging Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) claims. 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 Yossa’s FDCPA claim because the alleged communications were not attempts to collect a debt as defined by the FDCPA, and Yossa failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants’ conduct was unfair or unconscionable. See Ho v. ReconTrust Co., 858 F.3d 568, 572 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[A]ctions taken to facilitate a non-judicial foreclosure . . . are not attempts to collect ‘debt’ as that term is defined by the FDCPA.”); Dowers v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 852 F.3d 964, 970-71 (9th Cir. 2017) (explaining that “while the FDCPA regulates security interest enforcement activity, it does so only through Section 1692f(6),” and 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 omitted)). The district court properly dismissed Yossa’s RESPA claim under 12 U.S.C. 2 12-17704 § 2605(e) because Yossa failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants were “servicers” subject to this provision. See Medrano v. Flagstar Bank, F.S.B., 704 F.3d 661, 667 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that “only servicers of loans are subject to § 2605(e)’s duty to respond” to a qualified written request). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal, including the district court’s failure to consider material outside of the complaint. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 3 12-17704

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.