Lorena Meyer v. Santander Consumer USA

MEMORANDUM

Lorena Meyer appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her action alleging claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and California state law arising from the repossession and sale of a car she purchased with a loan. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Riggs v. Prober & Raphael, 681 F.3d 1097, 1102 (9th Cir.2012), and may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm.

Summary judgment on Meyer’s FDCPA claim was proper because, even though a creditor like defendant is not per se exempt from the FDCPA, Meyer failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant is a “debt collector” under the FDCPA by showing that defendant’s principal business is debt collection or that it collects debts on behalf of others. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) (defining “debt collector”); Schlegel v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 720 F.3d 1204 , 1208 n. 2, 1209-10 (9th Cir.2013) (rejecting claim that “a ‘creditor’ is not per se a ‘debt collector’ ” under the FDCPA, but concluding that the defendant was not a debt collector under §…