MARINA CALOVE V. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, No. 16-16044 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 5 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARINA CALOVE, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-16044 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01329-JAD-NJK v. MEMORANDUM* NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 26, 2017** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Marina Calove appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Mashiri * 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). v. Epsten Grinnell & Howell, 845 F.3d 984, 988 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Calove’s claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) because notice disputing the alleged debt was made more than thirty days after the initial communication about the debt. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) (written dispute by the debtor must be made within thirty days after receipt of the initial communication about the debt); Mahon v. Credit Bureau of Placer Cty. Inc., 171 F.3d 1197, 1203 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[A] tardy request for verification of the debt . . . [does] not trigger any obligation . . . to verify the debt.”). We reject as without merit Calove’s contention that she alleged other violations of the FDCPA in the operative complaint. 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. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). All pending requests are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 16-16044

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.