GEORGE NOBLE V. CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC., No. 17-17296 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JUN 21 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GEORGE B. NOBLE; PATRICIA L. NOBLE, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-17296 D.C. No. 4:17-cv-01053-CW Plaintiffs-Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Claudia Wilken, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 12, 2018** Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. George B. Noble and Patricia L. Noble appeal from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging federal and state law 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 * 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). Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed the Nobles’ Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) claim because the Nobles failed to allege facts sufficient to show that they suffered any actual damages from any alleged RESPA violation. See 12 U.S.C. § 2605(f)(1) (limiting recovery to “actual damages” where there is no pattern or practice of noncompliance with the requirements of § 2605). Dismissal of the Nobles’ California Civil Code section 2924.17 claim was proper because the Nobles lack standing to challenge any defective assignment of their loan or deed of trust. See Saterbak v. JPMorgan, 199 Cal. Rptr. 3d 790, 79596 (Ct. App. 2016) (borrowers lack standing to bring a preforeclosure suit challenging a defendant’s ability to foreclose). AFFIRMED. 2 17-17296

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.