Donna Brown v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUN 26 2020
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    DONNA BROWN, an individual;                     No.   19-55064
    TIMOTHY BROWN, an individual,
    D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00642-DMG-AGR
    Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    v.                                             MEMORANDUM*
    WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., FKA
    Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, FKA World
    Savings Bank, FSB, a corporation;
    Successor Wells Fargo Bank Southwest,
    N.A.,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted June 3, 2020**
    Pasadena, California
    Before: W. FLETCHER and LEE, Circuit Judges, and AMON,*** District Judge.
    Donna and Timothy Brown appeal the district court’s denial of leave to amend
    *
    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 Carol B. Amon, United States District Judge for the
    Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    their complaint. We review the denial of a motion to amend for abuse of discretion.
    See Chodos v. W. Publ’g Co., 
    292 F.3d 992
    , 1003 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
    1.     The Browns argue for the first time on appeal that Wells Fargo Bank,
    N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) acted as a “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collection
    Practices Act (“FDCPA”) because it serviced the Browns’ mortgage loan on behalf
    of a securitized trust. Because this argument was not raised below, it has been
    waived on appeal. See In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec. Litig., 
    618 F.3d 988
    ,
    992 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[A]n issue will generally be deemed waived on appeal if the
    argument was not raised sufficiently for the trial court to rule on it.”) (citations and
    internal quotation marks omitted).1
    2.     The Browns also now seek to add a state Rosenthal Act claim. But if a
    “party does not ask the district court for leave to amend, ‘the request on appeal to
    remand with instructions to permit amendment comes too late.’” Alaska v. United
    States, 
    201 F.3d 1154
    , 1163–64 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Jackson v. Am. Bar
    Ass’n, 
    538 F.2d 829
    , 833 (9th Cir. 1976)). Because the Browns did not seek leave
    1
    In any event, the FDCPA exempts activity that “concerns a debt which was not in
    default at the time it was obtained . . . .” 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(F). It is undisputed
    that Wells Fargo obtained servicing rights to the Browns’ mortgage loan prior to any
    default. As a result, the Browns likely cannot pursue a FDCPA claim based on Wells
    Fargo’s reporting on the mortgage loan. See De Dios v. Int’l Realty & Invs., 
    641 F.3d 1071
    , 1074–76 (9th Cir. 2011) (15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(F) precluded FDCPA
    claim against property management company retained before default to collect
    monthly payments).
    2
    of the district court to assert a Rosenthal Act claim, they cannot do so for the first
    time on appeal.
    AFFIRMED.
    3