Paul Wagner Iv; Monica Wagner v. National Default Servicing Corporation; U.s. Bank

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAUL WAGNER IV; MONICA WAGNER,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING
CORPORATION; U.S. BANK,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-16267
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00506-JCM-VCF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Paul Wagner IV and Monica Wagner appeal pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing their action alleging Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(“FDCPA”) claims. 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).
* 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).
FILED
FEB 27 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-16267
Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011).
We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the Wagners’ action because the
communications at issue do not constitute attempts to collect a debt under the
FDCPA. See Ho v. ReconTrust Co., NA, 858 F.3d 568, 572 (9th Cir. 2017)
(“[A]ctions taken to facilitate a non-judicial foreclosure, such as sending the notice
of default and notice of sale, are not attempts to collect ‘debt’ as that term is
defined by the FDCPA.”); Dowers v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 852 F.3d 964, 970
(9th Cir. 2017) (explaining that “while the FDCPA regulates security interest
enforcement activity, it does so only through Section 1692f(6),” and that “[a]s for
the remaining FDCPA provisions, ‘debt collection’ refers only to the collection of
a money debt”).
We do not consider matters not properly raised before the district court, or
matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
We reject as without merit the Wagners’ contentions related to Mortgage
Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., securitization of the loan, NDSC’s joinder in
the motion to dismiss, and the Wagners’ entitlement to discovery and a jury trial.
The Wagners’ motion for default judgment (Docket Entry No. 6) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --