Rudie Thomas v. Quality Loan Service Corporation

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUDIE THOMAS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
QUALITY LOAN SERVICE
CORPORATION
Defendants-Appellee.
No. 20-55133
D.C. No. 3:18-cv-02791-BAS-NLS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Cynthia A. Bashant, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Rudie Thomas appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action alleging federal and state law claims related to nonjudicial foreclosure
proceedings against his home. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Dougherty v. City of
* 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 24 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-55133
Covina, 654 F.3d 892, 897 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Thomas’s action because Thomas
failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’
or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’”)
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)); see also Cal. Civ.
Code § 2924(a)(6) (a substituted trustee is authorized to initiate foreclosure
proceedings); U.S. ex rel. Hendow v. Univ. of Phoenix, 461 F.3d 1166, 1174 (9th
Cir. 2006) (setting forth elements for a claim under the False Claims Act); L.A.
Cty. Bar Ass’n v. Eu, 979 F.2d 697, 703 (9th Cir. 1992) (declaratory relief claim
requires an “autonomous and independent dispute” of “vital importance” (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We reject as unsupported by the record Thomas’s contention that defendant
was not validly substituted as the trustee under the Deed of Trust.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --