Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2017

Peter Zeppeiro v. Green Tree Servicing

Peter Zeppeiro v. Green Tree Servicing
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided March 6, 2017 · Schroeder, Murguia, Gleason
679 F. App'x 592

Counsel

Patricia Renee Rodriguez, Attorney, Rodriguez Law Group, Inc., Pasadena, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant, Jan T. Chilton, Attorney, John B. Sullivan, Esquire, Mary Kate Sullivan, Esquire, Severson <& Werson APC, San Francisco, CA, Kerry W. Franich, Severson & Wer-son, Irvine, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Green Tree Servicing, LLC, Charles E. Katz, Esquire, Attorney, Routh Crabree Olsen, P.S., Bellevue, WA, for Defendant-Appellee Northwest Trustee Service, Inc.

Peter Zeppeiro v. Green Tree Servicing

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Peter Zeppeiro appeals from the district court’s judgment after dismissal of his second amended complaint in this California foreclosure case. Zeppeiro alleges that defendant Green Tree Servicing, LLC (“Green Tree”) violated provisions of California’s Homeowner’s Bill of Rights (“HBOR”), Cal. Civ. Code § 2924(a)(6), and Unfair Competition law (“UCL”), Business and Professions Code, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200,

We decline to dismiss the appeal pursuant to Rule 284(a) and affirm on the merits.

In this appeal Zeppeiro contends the district court erred in holding he failed to state a claim for violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 2924(a)(6), and in holding that the statute does not create a private right of action. There was no error. The HBOR states several specific provisions where a homeowner is granted a private right of action to sue for monetary damages; Section 2924(a)(6) is not included. Cal. Civ. Code § 2924.12(b).

Since there is no pending foreclosure of Zeppeiro’s property, and he does not claim he paid any money to the defendants on account of their allegedly unlawful acts, he lacks standing to pursue a UCL claim. See Hall v. Time Inc., 158 Cal.App.4th 847, 854-55, 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 466 (2008).

The district court did not err in denying leave to file a third amended complaint. Zeppeiro fails to show how he could have remedied the deficiencies in his complaint. Accordingly, there .was no abuse of the district court’s discretion. See Bowen v. Oistead, 125 F.3d 800, 806 (9th Cir. 1997).

Finally, the district court did not err in granting Green Tree’s request for judicial notice. Zeppeiro made no objection.

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.