Opinion
No. 18-55134
05-29-2019
TRINA R. PATTERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 5:17-cv-01049-PSG-PLA MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California
Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, LEAVY and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Trina R. Patterson appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her action alleging Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Kwan v. SanMedica Int'l, 854 F.3d 1088, 1093 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Patterson's FDCPA claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6) because Patterson failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants' conduct in enforcing a security interest was unfair or unconscionable. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6) (prohibiting unfair or unconscionable conduct in enforcing a security interest); Dowers v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 852 F.3d 964, 971 (9th Cir. 2017) (discussing protections for borrowers set forth in § 1692f(6)); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Patterson's state law claims after dismissing Patterson's FDCPA claims. See Satey v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 521 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir. 2008) (standard of review); Gini v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't, 40 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 1994) (explaining that when "federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors . . . will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims").
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Patterson's motion to alter or amend judgment because Patterson failed to establish any basis for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.