Peter Zeppeiro v. Green Tree Servicing ( 2017 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAR 06 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PETER ZEPPEIRO, No. 15-55747
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
2:14-cv-01336-MMM-JC
v.
GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC; MEMORANDUM*
NORTHWEST TRUSTEE SERVICES,
INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 10, 2017**
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and GLEASON,***
District Judge.
*
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).
***
The Honorable Sharon L. Gleason, United States District Judge for
the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
Peter Zeppeiro appeals from the district court’s judgment after dismissal of
his second amended complaint in this California foreclosure case. Zeppeiro alleges
that defendant Green Tree Servicing, LLC (“Green Tree”) violated provisions of
California’s Homeowner’s Bill of Rights (“HBOR”), Cal. Civ. Code § 2924(a)(6),
and Unfair Competition law (“UCL”), Business and Professions Code, Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code § 17200.
We decline to dismiss the appeal pursuant to Rule 28-1(a) and affirm on the
merits.
In this appeal Zeppeiro contends the district court erred in holding he failed
to state a claim for violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 2924(a)(6), and in holding that the
statute does not create a private right of action. There was no error. The HBOR
states several specific provisions where a homeowner is granted a private right of
action to sue for monetary damages; Section 2924(a)(6) is not included. Cal. Civ.
Code § 2924.12(b).
Since there is no pending foreclosure of Zeppeiro’s property, and he does
not claim he paid any money to the defendants on account of their allegedly
unlawful acts, he lacks standing to pursue a UCL claim. See Hall v. Tire, Inc., 158
Cal. App. 4th 847, 854–55 (2008).
2
The district court did not err in denying leave to file a third amended
complaint. Zeppeiro fails to show how he could have remedied the deficiencies in
his complaint. Accordingly, there was no abuse of the district court’s discretion.
See Bowen v. Oistead, 125 F.3d 800, 806 (9th Cir. 1997).
Finally, the district court did not err in granting Green Tree’s request for
judicial notice. Zeppeiro made no objection.
AFFIRMED.
3