MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiff-Appellant Melody Cochran appeals the district court’s order dismissing her complaint, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and dependent state law claims. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Schlegel v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 720 F.3d 1204, 1207 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.

The FDCPA only imposes liability when an entity is attempting to collect a debt. 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e). In her complaint, Cochran complains of Defendants-Appellees’ conduct related to the initiation of a nonjudicial foreclosure sale of her property, i.e., sending three pre-foreclosure notices. Such activity, which is required under California nonjudicial foreclosure laws, is not debt collection activity as defined by the FDCPA. Ho v. ReconTrust Co., 840 F.3d 618, 621 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[A]ctions taken to facilitate a non-judicial foreclosure, such as sending the notice of default and notice *612 of sale, are not attempts to collect a ‘debt’ as that term is defined by the FDCPA.”). Therefore, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the FDCPA claim and the dependent state law claims.

AFFIRMED. The issuance of the mandate in this case is STAYED pending the issuance of the mandate in Ho v. Recon-Trust, No. 10-56884. The requests for judicial notice are GRANTED.