NAEEM AHMAD V. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., No. 13-17309 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 22 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NAEEM AHMAD, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 13-17309 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01331-MCECKD 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. Naeem Ahmad appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal claims arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure * 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). 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Ahmad’s Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) claims concerning disclosures because any such claim was barred by the statute of limitations, and because there is no private right of action for violation of 12 U.S.C. § 2603(b). See 12 U.S.C. § 2614 (statute of limitations); Martinez v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., 598 F.3d 549, 557 (9th Cir. 2010) (no private right of action under 12 U.S.C. § 2603). The district court properly dismissed Ahmad’s RESPA claims concerning Bank of America’s failure to respond to Ahmad’s Qualified Written Request (“QWR”) because Ahmad failed to allege facts sufficient to show he suffered damages as a result. See 12 U.S.C. § 2605(f)(1) (explaining damages available under RESPA for failure to respond to a QWR). The district court properly dismissed Ahmad’s additional QWR-related RESPA claims because Ahmad failed to allege facts sufficient to show he sent any other QWRs to defendants acting as loan servicers. See 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e) (QWR statute limited to loan servicers). The district court properly dismissed Ahmad’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) claims related to actions defendants took in connection with commencing a non-judicial foreclosure of Ahmad’s property because “actions 2 13-17309 taken to facilitate a non-judicial foreclosure . . . are not attempts to collect ‘debt’ as that term is defined by the FDCPA.” Ho v. ReconTrust Co., N.A., 858 F.3d 568, 572 (9th Cir. 2017). The district court properly dismissed Ahmad’s FDCPA claims against Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., American Pacific Mortgage Corp., ReconTrust Co., N.A., and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. because Ahmad failed to allege facts sufficient to show these defendants were “debt collectors” within the meaning of that statute. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a)(6) (defining a “debt collector” as one who “regularly collects . . . debts owed . . . or due another” and excluding those collecting “a debt which was not in default at the time it was obtained by such person”). The district court properly dismissed Ahmad’s FDCPA claims against Bank of America, N.A. and Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC because Ahmad failed to allege facts sufficient to show these defendants used any “false, deceptive, or misleading . . . means in connection with the collection of a debt,” or otherwise violated any provision of the FDCPA. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692e (prohibiting false, deceptive, or misleading means in connection with collection of a debt); § 1692g(a)(3) (providing 30 day period for consumer to dispute a debt). 3 13-17309 The district court did not abuse its discretion in not granting Ahmad leave to file a second amended complaint. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp., 232 F.3d 719, 72526 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a district court “acts within its discretion to deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile”); Chodos v. West Publ’g Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (district court’s discretion “particularly broad” when it has already granted a plaintiff leave to amend). We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 4 13-17309

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.