James Hamilton v. Home Sales Inc.

MEMORANDUM

James Gary Hamilton and Beverly E. Hamilton appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir.2010), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Hamiltons’ Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) claim because the Hamiltons failed to allege facts sufficient to show that any defendant is a debt collector within the meaning of the FDCPA. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) (definition of “debt collector” under FDCPA); Schlegel v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 720 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir.2013) (complaint “must plead factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference” that defendant is a “debt collector” as defined by the FDCPA (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court properly dismissed the Hamiltons’ Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) claim because the Hamiltons failed to allege facts sufficient to show that they suffered any actual damages from the alleged…