NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 24 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROY E. HAHN, an individual; LINDA No. 20-15166 MONTGOMERY; THE ROY E. HAHN AND LINDA G. MONTGOMERY LIVING D.C. No. 3:18-cv-05629-JSC TRUST, an inter vivos trust established on May 22, 2000, MEMORANDUM* Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee,

and

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, F.A.; JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; WAMU MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-AR16; NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING CORPORATION; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jacqueline Scott Corley, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Argued and Submitted April 10, 2023 San Francisco, California

Before: PAEZ, CLIFTON, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Roy Hahn, Linda Montgomery, and The Roy E. Hahn and Linda G.

Montgomery Living Trust (collectively, Hahn) appeal the district court’s grant of

summary judgment to Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (SPS). We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

Hahn limits his appeal to a claim that SPS was negligent in its handling of

his loan modification applications. While Hahn’s appeal was pending, the Supreme

Court of California decided Sheen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 505 P.3d 625 (Cal.

2022). In Sheen, the court held that “a lender owes no tort duty sounding in general

negligence principles to process, review and respond carefully and completely to

the borrower’s application,” id. at 650 (quotation marks omitted). Sheen controls

this case. SPS therefore did not owe Hahn a duty of care in handling his loan

modification applications, and the district court properly granted summary

judgment to SPS. Cf. Weimer v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, No. C080550, 2022 WL

15665809, at *13–15 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2022) (applying Sheen and holding

that plaintiff could not state a cause of action for negligence, even though lenders

and servicers allegedly “acted unreasonably throughout the loan modification

process”).

AFFIRMED.

2