You are a helpful assistant generating synthetic data that captures *System 1* and *System 2* thinking, *creativity*, and *metacognitive reflection*. Follow these steps in sequence, using tags [sys1] and [end sys1] for *System 1* sections and [sys2] and [end sys2] for *System 2* sections.

1. *Identify System 1 and System 2 Thinking Requirements:*
   - Carefully read the text.
   - Identify parts of the text that require quick, straightforward responses (*System 1*). Mark these sections with [sys1] and [end sys1].
   - Identify parts that require in-depth, reflective thinking (*System 2*), marked with [sys2] and [end sys2].

2. *Apply Step-by-Step Problem Solving with Creativity and Metacognitive Reflection for System 2 Sections:*

   *2.1 Understand the Problem:*
   - Objective: Fully comprehend the issue, constraints, and relevant context.
   - Reflection: "What do I understand about this issue? What might I be overlooking?"
   - Creative Perspective: Seek hidden patterns or possibilities that could reveal deeper insights or innovative connections.

   *2.2 Analyze the Information:*
   - Objective: Break down the problem logically.
   - Reflection: "Am I considering all factors? Are there any assumptions that need challenging?"
   - Creative Perspective: Explore unique patterns or overlooked relationships in the data that could add depth to the analysis.

   *2.3 Generate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Propose at least 10 hypotheses, each with a Confidence Score (0.0 to 1.0) and Creative Score (0.0 to 1.0), reflecting originality, surprise, and utility.
   - Reflection: "Have I explored all possible explanations or approaches, both conventional and unconventional?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider novel angles that might provide unexpected insights.

   *2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:*
   - Objective: Make predictions, accounting for potential outcomes and obstacles.
   - Reflection: "What challenges might I face? Is my plan flexible for different scenarios?"
   - Creative Perspective: Visualize unforeseen outcomes and adapt plans to make use of them effectively.

   *2.5 Evaluate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Assess hypotheses based on feasibility, risk, and potential impact.
   - Evaluation: Refine Confidence and Creative Scores as needed.
   - Reflection: "Am I unbiased in my assessment? Which options fit best with the overall objectives?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify hidden opportunities or overlooked details in each hypothesis.

   *2.6 Select the Best Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Choose the most promising, strategic hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Why does this hypothesis stand out? How does it uniquely address the issue?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider any underutilized potential in the selected approach.

   *2.7 Implement the Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Outline actionable steps for testing the hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Is this plan practical? What resources or preparation are required?"
   - Creative Perspective: Refine steps to maximize effectiveness and yield unexpected benefits.

   *2.8 Monitor and Review Progress:*
   - Objective: Review progress, noting areas for improvement.
   - Reflection: "What’s working well? What could be improved?"
   - Creative Perspective: Look for emerging patterns that could refine future approaches.

   *2.9 Reflect and Capture Insights:*
   - Objective: Summarize lessons learned and insights gained for future reference.
   - Reflection: "What new understanding has emerged from this process?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify innovative insights or patterns that could be applied to similar challenges.

3. *Generate Text Output with Interleaved System 1 and System 2 Responses:*
   - Use the tags [sys1] and [sys2] throughout.
   - Aim for a lengthier, detailed response. Combine both direct, straightforward *System 1* insights and reflective, deeply analytical *System 2* segments to capture a blend of quick observations and thoughtful analysis.

---

### *Example Input Text:*

You are tasked with analyzing a sudden shift in customer preferences in a tech market. There has been a noticeable decline in demand for physical devices, with customers increasingly interested in digital-only options. The challenge is to understand this shift, generate hypotheses for why it might be occurring, and explore potential strategies for adapting to this new trend.

---

### *Processed Output with System 1 and System 2 Thinking:*

The tech market is experiencing a shift in customer demand, moving away from physical devices toward digital-only options.

[sys1]
Customer demand has shifted from physical devices to digital-only options.
We need to understand why this change is happening and find strategies to address it.
Key factors may include cost, convenience, and technological trends.
[end sys1]

[sys2]
**2.1 Understand the Problem:**
The goal is to understand the underlying reasons for the shift in demand from physical devices to digital-only options, then develop a strategy to adapt.

*Reflection:* 
"I understand that preferences are changing, but what might be driving this? Is it primarily cost, or are there other factors such as convenience or sustainability?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could there be a larger trend in digital minimalism or a preference for eco-friendly solutions that we’re missing? What unseen motivations might explain this shift?"

**2.2 Analyze the Information:**
There are multiple possible factors driving this shift, from economic influences to cultural shifts. It’s essential to isolate each factor and understand its impact.

*Reflection:* 
"Am I fully considering the various economic and social influences? Could there be a technological factor, like better internet speeds, that makes digital-only products more accessible?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Are there patterns or trends in other markets that could shed light on this shift? Could this be part of a larger trend toward virtual experiences?"

**2.3 Generate Hypotheses:**
1. Customers prefer digital options due to lower costs. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.4)
2. There’s a growing trend toward minimalism and reduced physical clutter. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.7)
3. Digital products offer greater flexibility and ease of use. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
4. Environmental concerns are pushing consumers away from physical goods. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.8)
5. Advances in tech make digital-only options more functional. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.5)
6. Pandemic-era remote work increased demand for digital solutions. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.6)
7. Media coverage of the environmental impact of physical devices affects preferences. (Confidence: 0.5, Creative: 0.7)
8. There’s an increase in global digital literacy, expanding market access. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
9. Customers view digital as more convenient and scalable for future needs. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.5)
10. Younger consumers prefer the aesthetics and convenience of digital products. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)

*Reflection:* 
"Have I considered all possible influences? Are there any surprising factors that could explain this shift?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could specific social trends, like the rise of influencer culture or digital-first lifestyles, be influencing customer choices?"

**2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:**
*Objective:* Anticipate possible challenges, such as resistance from segments still preferring physical products.

*Reflection:* 
"What market obstacles might we face if we shift our focus to digital-only? Are there sub-segments that still prioritize physical products?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could expanding digital options help us reach a more global audience? Are there emerging trends that we could leverage in our strategy?"

[end sys2]

[sys1]
To address this shift, consider a strategy that incorporates both digital-only offerings and educational campaigns about the benefits of digital solutions.
Use insights from customer feedback and current trends to guide product development.
Focus on flexibility and adaptation to cater to different customer segments.
[end sys1]


                                                         [DO NOT PUBLISH]


             IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                FILED
                    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                      ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                                                            NOV 3, 2008
                             No. 08-12387                 THOMAS K. KAHN
                         Non-Argument Calendar                CLERK
                       ________________________

               D. C. Docket No. 07-01253-CV-ORL-31-GJK

CATHERINE F. VELARDO,
NELSON J. VELARDO,


                                                         Plaintiffs-Appellants,

                                  versus

FREMONT INVESTMENT & LOAN,
AMERICAS SERVICING COMPANY,
EASTERN SEABOARD FINANCIAL,


                                                        Defendants-Appellees.


                       ________________________

                Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Middle District of Florida
                     _________________________

                           (November 3, 2008)

Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

      The claims in this case arose out of the refinancing of the mortgage on

appellants’ home. Appellants refinanced their mortgage by entering into a contract

with Eastern Seaboard Financial (“ESF”) on October 19, 2005, to obtain a loan

from Fremont Investment & Loan (“Fremont”). The loan closed, and on February

1, 2006, Fremont assigned the loan to American Servicing Company (“ASC”).

Prior to the assignment, appellants, on December 3, 2005, sent Fremont a notice to

rescind the refinancing agreement because ESF and Fremont and violated the

Florida Consumer Protection Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act

(“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2607, the Home Owners Equity Protection Act

(“HOEPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1602, and the Florida Fair Lending Act. On February 6,

2006, appellants sent the same notice to rescind to ASC.

      The refinanced mortgage went into default, and on July 18, 2006, ASC

brought a foreclosure action against appellants in Florida circuit court. The circuit

court entered judgment for ASC on February 8, 2007, and on August 6, 2007,

appellants, proceeding pro se brought this lawsuit against Fremont, ASC, and ESF.

In a eight-count complaint, they sought damages in Counts I and V under the Truth

in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1601, et seq., and in Count IV under

RESPA. In Counts II and III, they sought rescission of the mortgage loan under



                                          2
TILA. Counts VI, VII, and VII were brought under state law.

       In an order entered on April 25, 2008, the district court granted appellees’

motion for judgment on the pleadings. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). Record, Vol. 3 at

Tab 79. The court dismissed Counts I, IV, and V, because they were barred by

one-year statutes of limitations and the limitations periods were not subject to

equitable tolling. The court dismissed the Count II and III TILA rescission claims

pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman1 doctrine, concluding that the claims were not

independent of the claims involved in the circuit court foreclosure action. Finally,

the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims of

Counts VI, VII, and VIII.

       Appellants now appeal the court’s judgment. They contend that although all

of their TILA claims were untimely filed, the claims were subject to equitable

tolling, because Fremont and ASC concealed the violations and they were diligent

in seeking district court relief. They also contend that the district court erred in

dismissing their TILA rescission claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

       The TILA requires creditors to provide consumers with “clear and accurate

disclosures of terms dealing with things like finance charges, annual percentage

rates of interest, and the borrower's rights,” including the right of rescission.


       1
        Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S. Ct. 149, 68 L. Ed. 362 (1923); D.C. Court
of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S. Ct. 1303, 75 L. Ed. 2d 206 (1983).

                                                3
Beach v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, 523 U.S. 410, 412, 118 S. Ct. 1408, 1410, 140 L. Ed.

2d 566 (1998). Further, the TILA provides that, when a loan made in a consumer

credit transaction is secured by the consumer's principal dwelling, the consumer

has the right to rescind the transaction until midnight of the third business day

following the consummation of the transaction or delivery of the material

disclosure and rescission forms, whichever is later. 15 U.S.C. § 1635(a). If the

creditor fails to deliver the forms, or fails to provide the required information, then

the consumer's right of rescission extends for three years after the date of

consummation of the transaction, or until the property is sold, whichever occurs

first. 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f); 12 C.F.R. § 226.23(a)(3). Within 20 days after receipt

of a notice of rescission, the creditor shall take any necessary action to reflect the

termination of any security interest created by the transaction. 15 U.S.C. § 1635(b).

      Pursuant to § 1640(e), all TILA claims must be brought “within one year

from the date of the occurrence of the violation.” 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e). The

violation “occurs” when the transaction is consummated. Nondisclosure is not a

continuing violation for purposes of the statute of limitations. In re Smith (Smith

v. American Fin. Sys., Inc.), 7373 F.2d 1549, 1552 (11th Cir. 1984). TILA’s

limitations period is subject to equitable tolling, however, in cases where the debtor

has been prevented from bringing suit due to inequitable circumstances. Ellis v.



                                            4
GMAC, 160 F.3d 703, 706 (11th Cir. 1998). In Ellis, we said that the statute was

subject to equitable tolling because, otherwise, a consumer whose cause of action

fraudulently was concealed from him until after a year had passed would be

prevented from pursuing the cause of action, an “anomalous result.” Id. at 708.

       Because appellants filed their TILA claims for damages beyond the one-year

limitations period, and they were on notice that the alleged mortgage fraud had

occurred at the time they signed their loan documents or soon thereafter, their

claims were untimely, and they did not meet the standard for equitable tolling.

       Under the Rooker-Feldman abstention doctrine, “[i]t is well-settled that a

federal district court lacks jurisdiction to review, reverse, or invalidate a final state

court decision.” Dale v. Moore, 121 F.3d 624, 626 (11th Cir. 1997). “[T]he

authority to review final decisions from the highest court of the state is reserved to

the Supreme Court of the United States.” Id. (internal citations omitted). “The

doctrine extends not only to constitutional claims presented or adjudicated by a

state court, but also to claims that are ‘inextricably intertwined’ with a state court

judgment. A federal claim is inextricably intertwined with a state court judgment

if the federal claim succeeds only to the extent that the state court wrongly decided

the issues before it.” Goodman ex rel. Goodman v. Sipos, 259 F.3d 1327, 1332

(11th Cir. 2001). In deciding this relationship, the court focuses on the federal



                                             5
claim’s relationship to the issues involved in the state court proceeding, instead of

on the type of relief sought by the plaintiff. Id. at 1333 (holding that the Rooker-

Feldman doctrine is broad enough to bar all federal claims that were, or should

have been, central to the state court decision, even if those claims seek a form of

relief that might not have been available from the state court).

      In the scenario presented here, it is obvious that appellants’ federal claims

were inextricably intertwined with those litigated by the circuit court judgment.

      For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is

      AFFIRMED.




                                           6