Schneider v. Molina

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 26, 2023
• Docket: 3:22-cv-01666
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 JULIE SCHNEIDER, Case No.: 22-cv-1666-CAB-DDL

15 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 16 v. MOTIONS TO DISMISS

17 ALICIA MOLINA, et al, [Doc. Nos. 12, 13, 20] 18 Defendants. 19 20 Plaintiff Julie Schneider filed this action, in pro se, on October 26, 2022, alleging 21 the wrongful foreclosure of Plaintiff’s home at 9272 Brookside Circle, Spring Valley, CA 22 (“the Property”). [Doc No. 1 at 1]. The complaint is largely unintelligible, but the Court 23 gathers that Plaintiff’s grievances arise from Defendants’1 commencement of nonjudicial 24 foreclosure proceedings on the Property. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the promissory 25 note used to create the loan for the home was allegedly “forged” and that Defendants 26

27 1 Plaintiff’s complaint does not distinguish between Defendants in her complaint, so any mention of 28 1 allegedly failed to deliver the deed. [Doc. No. 1 at 4]. There are no specific allegations 2 regarding each Defendant’s role in any wrongdoing against the Plaintiff. The complaint 3 lists four causes of action: three state law claims and a federal claim under the Fair Debt 4 Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. [Doc. No. 1 at 8]. The 5 Court’s subject matter jurisdiction is based on the federal question presented by the FDCPA 6 claim. 7 Two similar motions to dismiss have been filed. The first motion is by Defendants 8 Freedom Mortgage Corporation, Stanley Middleman, and Stan Moskowitz [Doc. No. 13], 9 and the second is by Nestor Trustee Services, LLC [Doc. No. 20]. Plaintiff filed an 10 opposition on January 13, 2023, that neither clarifies the allegations in the complaint nor 11 addresses most of the arguments made for dismissal. The Court has determined these 12 motions to dismiss suitable for determination on the papers. CivLR 7.1(d)(1). As discussed 13 below, because the complaint fails to state a claim for violation of the FDCPA, and that 14 claim is the sole basis for federal jurisdiction, the complaint is dismissed in its entirety. 15 “The FDCPA subjects ‘debt collectors’ to civil damages for engaging in certain 16 abusive practices while attempting to collect debts.” Vien-Phuong Thi Ho v. ReconTrust 17 Co., NA, 858 F.3d 568, 571 (9th Cir. 2017). Thus, “[t]he FDCPA imposes liability only 18 when an entity is attempting to collect debt.” Id. Those who engage only in non-judicial 19 foreclosure proceedings are not “debt collectors” as defined in the FDCPA. Obduskey v. 20 McCarthy & Holthus, LLP, 129 S.Ct. 1029, 1038 (2019). Here, although the complaint is 21 difficult to parse, it appears that all of Defendants’ alleged wrongdoing arise out of their 22 alleged participation in nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings on the Property. “[A]ctions 23 taken to facilitate a non-judicial foreclosure, such as sending the notice of default and 24 notice of sale, are not attempts to collect ‘debt’ as that term is defined by the FDCPA.” 25 Ho, 858 F.3d at 572. Thus, because Defendants are not “debt collectors,” the complaint 26 fails to state a claim under the FDCPA and this claim is DISMISSED with prejudice. 27 28 1 2 In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 3 1. The motions to dismiss [Doc. Nos. 13, 20] are GRANTED with respect to 4 Plaintiff's claim under the FDCPA; 5 2. The FDCPA claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 6 3. Having dismissed the sole federal claim, the Court declines to exercise 7 jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims;7 8 4. The state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to being 9 refiled in state court; and, 10 5. Plaintiffs motion to add parties and exhibits [Doc. No. 12] is DENIED AS 1] MOOT. 12 The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case. No further filings will be accepted. 13 14 It is SO ORDERED. 15 16 ||Dated: January 26, 2023 (GR 17 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 jj 25 > See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988) (holding that “when the federal-law 26 claims have dropped out of the lawsuit in its early stages and only state-law claims remain, the federal court should decline the exercise of jurisdiction by dismissing the case without prejudice”); see also 27 Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 561 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A district court ‘may decline to 28 exercise supplemental jurisdiction’ if it ‘has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.’ (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)).