NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 10 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHAWN GORDON, No. 20-55850
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
2:18-cv-10075-DMG-PLA
v.
U.S. BANK, N.A.; FAY SERVICING, LLC, MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees,
and
OLD REPUBLIC DEFAULT
MANAGEMENT SERVICES; QUALITY
LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 6, 2021**
Pasadena, California
Before: PAEZ, CALLAHAN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
In this action, Shawn Gordon claims that the servicers of his home loan
secured by a deed of trust violated California Civil Code § 2923.6 and the Federal
Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g). The district court granted
summary judgment to the defendants. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291
and affirm.
1. Like the district court, we assume without deciding that the defendant loan
servicers engaged in dual tracking in violation of § 2923.6 by seeking to foreclose
on Gordon’s home while he attempted to modify his loan. But § 2924.12 permits a
borrower to enforce violations of § 2923.6 until the servicer has “corrected and
remedied” the violation “prior to the recordation of the trustee’s deed upon sale.”
Id. § 2924.12(b). The defendants never foreclosed on the property and rescinded all
prior notices of default after Gordon sought modification of his loan. The defendants
paused all foreclosure procedures while they considered Gordon’s applications and
issued final determinations on those applications before resuming foreclosure
activities. See Berman v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 11 Cal. App. 5th 465, 473 (2017).
The district court therefore correctly rejected Gordon’s state law claim.
2. Gordon claims that the defendants violated the TILA requirement that a
creditor notify a borrower of any change in his loan’s ownership within 30 days. 15
U.S.C. § 1641(g)(1). It is undisputed, however, that he received timely notice that
the Truman Trust purchased his loan from U.S. Bank in 2018. Gordon argues that
2
the notice was invalid because it came from an agent who had not yet begun
servicing his loan, and that only “the creditor” may send such a notice. Id. But, the
TILA provides only that “the creditor that is the new owner or assignee of the debt”
must provide the notice within 30 days of the loan being “sold or otherwise
transferred.” Id. The district court correctly held that because Gordon timely
received the required notice, his TILA claim fails.
AFFIRMED.
3