George B. Noble; Patricia L. Noble v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc.;

17-17296Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJun 21, 2018

Full text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GEORGE B. NOBLE; PATRICIA L.
NOBLE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-17296
D.C. No. 4:17-cv-01053-CW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Claudia Wilken, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
George B. Noble and Patricia L. Noble appeal from the district court’s
judgment dismissing their action alleging federal and state law claims arising from
foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal
* 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).
FILED
JUN 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-17296
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir.
2010). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul,
547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the Nobles’ Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act (“RESPA”) claim because the Nobles failed to allege facts
sufficient to show that they suffered any actual damages from any alleged RESPA
violation. See 12 U.S.C. § 2605(f)(1) (limiting recovery to “actual damages”
where there is no pattern or practice of noncompliance with the requirements of
§ 2605).
Dismissal of the Nobles’ California Civil Code section 2924.17 claim was
proper because the Nobles lack standing to challenge any defective assignment of
their loan or deed of trust. See Saterbak v. JPMorgan, 199 Cal. Rptr. 3d 790, 795-
96 (Ct. App. 2016) (borrowers lack standing to bring a preforeclosure suit
challenging a defendant’s ability to foreclose).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.