MEMORANDUM **
In this action, Shawn Gordon claims that the servicers of his home loan secured by a deed of trust violated California Civil Code § 2923.6 and the Federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g). The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
1. Like the district court, we assume without deciding that the defendant loan servicers engaged in dual tracking in violation of § 2923.6 by seeking to foreclose on Gordons home while he attempted to modify his loan. But § 2924.12 permits a borrower to enforce violations of § 2923.6 until the servicer has “corrected and remedied” the violation “prior to the recordation of the trustees deed upon sale.” Id. § 2924.12(b). The defendants never foreclosed on the property and rescinded all prior notices of default after Gordon sought modification of his loan. The defendants paused all foreclosure procedures while they considered Gordons applications and issued final determinations on those applications before resuming foreclosure activities. See Berman v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 11 Cal. App. 5th 465, 473, 217 Cal.Rptr.3d 674 (2017). The district court therefore correctly rejected Gordons state law claim.
2. Gordon claims that the defendants violated the TILA requirement that a creditor notify a borrower of any change in his loans ownership within 30 days. 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g)(1). It is undisputed, however, that he received timely notice that the Truman Trust purchased his loan from U.S. Bank in 2018. Gordon argues that the notice was invalid because it came from an agent who had not yet begun servicing his loan, and that only “the creditor” may send such a notice. Id. But, the TILA provides only that “the creditor that is the new owner or assignee of the debt” must provide the notice within 30 days of the loan being “sold or otherwise transferred.” Id. The district court correctly held that because Gordon timely received the required notice, his TILA claim fails.
AFFIRMED.