[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 19

- 11016 Non

- Argument Calendar

____________ ____________
D.C. Docket No. 4:18

- cv - 00199

- CDL

SHEREEN R. GREENE, Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus INTUIT INC, d.b.a. Quicken Loans, LIBERTY UTILITIES, Defendants, ROCKET MORTGAGE, AMROCK INC., f.k.a. Title Source Inc., MORTGAGE ELECTRIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., d.b.a. MERS Inc., COOK & JAMES, LLC, JOHN AND OR J ANE DOES, mortgage aggregators, wholesalers, mortgage originators, loan sellers, trustee of pooled assets, trustee for holders of certificates of collateralized mortgage obligat i ons, investment bankers, future buyers and investors, Individually and Sev erally,

Case: 19-11016 Date Filed: 11/26/2019 Page: 1 of 42 QUICKEN LOANS, RUBIN LUBLIN, LLC, et al., Defendants

- Appellees.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia

________________________ ( November 26, 2019 ) Before BRANCH , TJOFLAT, and FAY, Circuit Judge s . PER CURIAM: I. Shereen Greene, a pro se plaintiff, attempted to bring a claim against the defendants under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) and the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). The District Court dismissed her second amended complaint because § 10 of RESPA does not create a private ri ght of action and because she filed her TILA claim more than one year after the mortgage transaction in controversy. The District Court also chose to dismiss Greene’s remaining state law claims

— after dismissing her federal claims

— rather than exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. Greene appeals. Because (1) the District Court properly found that § 10 of RESPA does not provide for a private right of action, (2) Greene’s TILA claim is time

- barred, and (3) the District Court did not abuse i ts discretion in dismiss ing Greene’s state law

Case: 19-11016 Date Filed: 11/26/2019 Page: 2 of 43 claims after dismissing all of the claims over which it had original jurisdiction, we affirm

.

I I.
We review a d istrict court ’s grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion de novo . Hill

v. White , 321 F.3d 1334, 1335 (11th Cir. 2003). The complaint is viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and all of the plaintiff’s well

- pled facts are accepted as true. Id

. There is no private right of action u nder § 10 of RESPA because it is the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development who assess es civil penalties for violations of that section. Hardy v. Regions Mortg., Inc. , 449 F.3d 1357, 1359 (11th Cir. 2006). Therefore, here, the District Court properly dismissed Greene’s RESPA claim. In contrast, TILA provides a private right of action. 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a). However, a plaintiff must bring a TILA action “within one year from the date of the occurrence of the violation.” Id . § 1640(e). TILA violations occur when the transaction is co nsummated

. In re Smith , 737 F.2d 1549, 1552 (11th Cir. 1984).
H ere, the transaction was consummated when Greene’s residential mortgage transaction closed

. See Frazile v. EMC Mortg. Corp. , 382 F. App’x 833, 8 3 8 (11th Cir. 2010) (noting that a TILA nondis closure violation occurs “at the time of closing of a residential mortgage transaction” (citing Smith , 737 F.2d at 1552)).

Case: 19-11016 Date Filed: 11/26/2019 Page: 3 of 44 Because she did not bring her TILA claim within one year of that transaction , the District Court properly dismissed Greene’s TILA cl aim

. III.
We review a district court’s decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction for an abuse of discretion. Parker v. Scrap Metal Processors, Inc. , 468 F.3d 733, 738 (11th Cir. 2006).
A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)( 3 )

. That is exactly what happened here

— the District Court declined to exercise s upplemental jurisdiction over Greene’s state law claims after dismissing all of the claims over which it had original jurisdiction . Therefore, the District Court did not err . IV. Accordingly , the D istrict C ourt properly dismissed Greene’s complaint, and we affirm. AFFIRMED. Case: 19-11016 Date Filed: 11/26/2019 Page: 4 of 4