NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 26 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAUL EMMANUEL POUTCHEU YOSSA, No. 12-17704
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00023-MCE-
GGH
v.
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS INC; et MEMORANDUM*
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
This matter has been stayed since June 27, 2017, pending issuance of the
mandate in Ho v. ReconTrust Co., N.A., No. 10-56884, or further order of the
court. We hereby lift the stay.
Paul Emmanuel Poutcheu Yossa appeals pro se from the district court’s
*
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).
judgment dismissing his action alleging Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(“FDCPA”) and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) claims. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 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 Yossa’s FDCPA claim because the
alleged communications were not attempts to collect a debt as defined by the
FDCPA, and Yossa failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants’
conduct was unfair or unconscionable. See Ho v. ReconTrust Co., 858 F.3d 568,
572 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[A]ctions taken to facilitate a non-judicial foreclosure . . . are
not attempts to collect ‘debt’ as that term is defined by the FDCPA.”); Dowers v.
Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 852 F.3d 964, 970-71 (9th Cir. 2017) (explaining that
“while the FDCPA regulates security interest enforcement activity, it does so only
through Section 1692f(6),” and 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 omitted)).
The district court properly dismissed Yossa’s RESPA claim under 12 U.S.C.
2 12-17704
§ 2605(e) because Yossa failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants
were “servicers” subject to this provision. See Medrano v. Flagstar Bank, F.S.B.,
704 F.3d 661, 667 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that “only servicers of loans are
subject to § 2605(e)’s duty to respond” to a qualified written request).
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, including the district court’s failure to consider material outside of the
complaint. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
3 12-17704