Roy E. Hahn, an individual v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROY E. HAHN, an individual; LINDA
MONTGOMERY; THE ROY E. HAHN
AND LINDA G. MONTGOMERY LIVING
TRUST, an inter vivos trust established on
May 22, 2000,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, F.A.;
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; WAMU
MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-AR16;
NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING
CORPORATION; DEUTSCHE BANK
NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY,
Defendants.
No. 20-15166
D.C. No. 3:18-cv-05629-JSC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jacqueline Scott Corley, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
APR 24 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Argued and Submitted April 10, 2023
San Francisco, California
Before: PAEZ, CLIFTON, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Roy Hahn, Linda Montgomery, and The Roy E. Hahn and Linda G.
Montgomery Living Trust (collectively, Hahn) appeal the district court’s grant of
summary judgment to Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (SPS). We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
Hahn limits his appeal to a claim that SPS was negligent in its handling of
his loan modification applications. While Hahn’s appeal was pending, the Supreme
Court of California decided Sheen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 505 P.3d 625 (Cal.
2022). In Sheen, the court held that “a lender owes no tort duty sounding in general
negligence principles to process, review and respond carefully and completely to
the borrower’s application,” id. at 650 (quotation marks omitted). Sheen controls
this case. SPS therefore did not owe Hahn a duty of care in handling his loan
modification applications, and the district court properly granted summary
judgment to SPS. Cf. Weimer v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, No. C080550, 2022 WL
15665809, at *13–15 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2022) (applying Sheen and holding
that plaintiff could not state a cause of action for negligence, even though lenders
and servicers allegedly “acted unreasonably throughout the loan modification
process”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --