Robert Van Zandt v. Russell Stanaland

MEMORANDUM

Robert Van Zandt appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging that defendant Russell Sta-naland, an attorney, violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) by recording an abstract of a state court judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Van Zandt’s FDCPA claim because Van Zandt failed to allege facts showing that the abstract of judgment was a “debt” under the FDCPA. 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5) (defining “debt” as “any obligation or alleged obligation of a consumer to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes”); see also Turner v. Cook, 362 F.3d 1219, 1226-28 (9th Cir.2004) (a tort judgment was not a debt within the meaning of the FDCPA, and the FDCPA did not apply, because the judgment did not arise from a consumer transaction).

The district court properly dismissed Van Zandt’s FCRA claim because Van…