FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 01 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KITTY YINLING ZHANG, No. 12-15952
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-03475-NC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC;
et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Nathanael M. Cousins, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted April 22, 2015***
Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Kitty Yinling Zhang appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims in connection with
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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).
foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo, and may affirm on any ground supported by the record.
Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Zhang’s Real Estate Settlement
Practices Act (“RESPA”) claim alleging inadequate disclosures, because Zhang
failed to allege facts sufficient to show that any defendant failed to provide a
required disclosure with respect to the transfer of a loan. See 12 U.S.C. § 2605(a)-
(c) (setting forth disclosures that must be made regarding the transfer of a loan).
Dismissal of Zhang’s RESPA claim alleging inadequate responses to her
Qualified Written Request was proper because Zhang failed to allege facts
sufficient to show that she suffered any actual damages as a result of the alleged
violation. See 12 U.S.C. § 2605(f)(1)(A) (allowing recovery of “actual damages”).
The district court properly dismissed Zhang’s Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act claim because, even assuming that defendant ReconTrust was a “debt
collector” and was “collecting” a debt, records subject to judicial notice show that
ReconTrust provided Zhang all statutorily required information. See 15 U.S.C.
§ 1692g(b) (setting forth information a debt collector must provide when a
consumer disputes a debt or seeks information regarding the original creditor); see
also Clark v. Capital Credit & Collection Servs., Inc., 460 F.3d 1162, 1173-74 (9th
2 12-15952
Cir. 2006) (“[V]erification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector
confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is
claiming is owed.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
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) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
3 12-15952