Case: 17-11320 Date Filed: 01/09/2018 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-11320
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:16-cv-62451-BB
OSCAR NAVIA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
NATION STAR MORTGAGE LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(January 9, 2018)
Before MARCUS, WILSON, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 17-11320 Date Filed: 01/09/2018 Page: 2 of 4
Oscar Navia, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his
amended complaint, with prejudice, against Nationstar Mortgage LLC
(Nationstar). On appeal, Navia argues that Nationstar violated the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., a consumer
protection statute that regulates the real estate settlement process, by failing to
adhere to the various obligations that the related regulation—Regulation X, 12
C.F.R. §1024.41—imposes upon mortgage loan servicers.
We review de novo a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Chaparro v.
Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333, 1335 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). We accept the
amended complaint’s allegations as true and construe them in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff. Id. “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949
(2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. When
evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the district court can consider
documents attached to the motion to dismiss, as well as any documents that the
compliant refers to, if they are central to the plaintiff’s claim and their contents are
2
Case: 17-11320 Date Filed: 01/09/2018 Page: 3 of 4
undisputed. Fin. Sec. Assurance, Inc. v. Stephens, Inc., 500 F.3d 1276, 1284 (11th
Cir. 2007) (per curiam).
The district court did not err in dismissing Navia’s complaint for a failure to
state a claim. RESPA’s Regulation X places certain obligations on mortgage
servicers when a borrower submits a loss mitigation application and lays out
distinct procedures and rules for submitting such applications. See generally 12
C.F.R. § 1024.41. If the borrower submits a complete application more than 37
days before a scheduled foreclosure sale, then ordinarily, the servicer must
“evaluate the borrower for all loss mitigation options available to the borrower”
and provide the borrower with written notice “stating the servicer’s determination
of which loss mitigation options, if any, it will offer to the borrower.” Id. §
1024.41(c)(1)(i)–(ii). But, per the duplicative requests rule, a servicer need not
comply with § 1024.41’s requirements on subsequent applications if that servicer
previously complied with § 1024.41’s requirements with regard to a borrower’s
loss mitigation application. See id. § 1024.41(i) (2014) (providing that “[a]
servicer is only required to comply with the requirements of this section for a
single complete loss mitigation application for a borrower’s mortgage loan
account”). 1
1
This is no longer § 1024.41(i)’s effective language. See 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(i) (2017).
However, because it was the language in effect when Navia sent Nationstar his additional loan
modification requests, we use it to determine Nationstar’s liability. See Landgraf v. USI Film
3
Case: 17-11320 Date Filed: 01/09/2018 Page: 4 of 4
As such, Navia’s argument that Nationstar violated RESPA because it failed
to comply with Regulation X in connection with his subsequent loss mitigation
application fails. Because this was a subsequent application, and Nationstar
complied with Regulation X for a previous loss mitigation application, it need not
have complied here. See id. § 1024.41(i) (2014). 2 Accordingly, we affirm the
district court.
AFFIRMED.
Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 264, 114 S. Ct. 1483, 1496 (1994) (stating that the legal effect of conduct
should ordinarily be assessed under the law that existed when the conduct took place).
2
Nationstar asserted, and attached documents to support, that it had previously reviewed,
approved, and entered into a loan modification with Navia on May 22, 2014. See Fin. Sec.
Assurance, Inc., 500 F.3d at 1284.
4