David Eric Bushlow v. MTC FINANCIAL, INC., DBA Trustee Corp, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID ERIC BUSHLOW,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MTC FINANCIAL, INC., DBA Trustee
Corp, Inc.,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 18-16687
D.C. No. 5:17-cv-06771-VKD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Virginia K. DeMarchi, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted May 21, 2019***
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, LEAVY and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
David Eric Bushlow appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”)
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAY 29 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-16687
claims against the foreclosure trustee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Kwan v. SanMedica Int’l, 854 F.3d 1088,
1093 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Bushlow’s FDCPA claim under 15
U.S.C. § 1692f(6) because Bushlow failed to allege facts sufficient to show that
defendant’s conduct was unfair or unconscionable. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6)
(prohibiting unfair or unconscionable conduct in enforcing a security interest);
Dowers v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 852 F.3d 964, 971 (9th Cir. 2017) (discussing
protections for borrowers set forth in § 1692f(6)); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court properly dismissed Bushlow’s remaining FDCPA claims
because defendant is not a debt collector except under 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6). See
Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holtus, LLP, 139 S. Ct. 1029, 1038 (2019) (“[B]ut for §
1692f(6), those who engage in only nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings are not
debt collectors within the meaning of the [FDCPA].”); Dowers, 852 F.3d at 970
(explaining that “while the FDCPA regulates security interest enforcement activity,

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-16687
it does so only through Section 1692f(6)”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --