Case ID: f-appx_693/html/0564-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rajesh VARMA; Mahima Varma, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMERICA’S WHOLESALE LENDER, Its Successors and/or Assigns, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 16-56440
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2017
    
    Filed July 3, 2017
    
      Rajesh Varma, Pro Se
    Mahima Varma, Pro Se
    Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rajesh Varma and Mahima Varma appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing sua sponte their action alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Varmas’ action alleging a TILA claim for rescission because the Varmas did not exercise their right of rescission within three years of when they consummated the loan transaction. See 16 U.S.C. § 1636(f); Beach v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, 623 U.S. 410, 412-13, 419, 118 S.Ct. 1408, 140 L.Ed.2d 566 (1998) (explaining that “§ 1635(f) completely extinguishes the right of rescission at the end of the 3-year period”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a district court can dismiss without leave to amend where amendment would be futile).

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