NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODRICK I. SATRE ; BONITA SATRE DALEY, Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, AKA America's Servicing Company, AKA Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 15

- 16025 D.C. No. 4:10

- cv - 01405

- JSW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 21 , 201 9 ** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, LEAVY and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Rodrick I. Satre and Bonita Satre Daley ap peal pro se from the district court’ s judgm ent dismissing their a ction alleging federal and state law claims arising from foreclosure proceedings

. We have jurisdiction unde r 28 U.S.C.

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

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 29 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 16025

§ 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under F ed eral R

ule of Civ il P rocedure 12(b)(6)

. Kwan v. SanMedica Int’l , 854 F.3d 1088, 1093 (9th Cir. 2017)

. We affirm. The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) claims because plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient

to state plausible claims for relief under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d

- 1692g. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d

- 1692g; Dowers v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC , 852 F.3d 964, 971 (9th Cir. 2017) (discussing protections for borrowers set forth in § 1692f(6)); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted))

. The district c ourt properly dismissed plaintiffs’ T ruth in L ending A ct (“TILA”) damages claim s because these claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation s and plaintiffs failed to allege facts demonstrating that equitable tolling should apply. See 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e) (TILA damages claims are subject to a one

- year statute of limitations); Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc ., 656 F.3d 1034, 10 45 (9th Cir. 2011) (federal standard for equitable tolling).3 15

- 16025

The district court p roperly dismissed plain tiffs’ TILA rescission claim because plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to show that they sent a notice of rescission to defendants within three years of consummation of the loan. See 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f) (providing a right of rescission within t hree years of the date of the consummation of a loan if the lender fails to make required disclosures to the borrower); Jesinoski v . Countrywide Home Loans, Inc ., 135 S. Ct. 790, 792 (2015) (a borrower may exercise right of rescission by n otifying the lend er of borrower’ s intent to rescind within three years after the transaction is consummated); Miguel v. Country Funding Corp ., 309 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[Section] 1635(f) is a statute of repose, depriving the courts of subject matter jurisdictio n when a § 1635 claim is brought outside the three

- year limitation period.”). The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“ RESPA ”) claim concerning Wells Fargo’s failure to respond to plaintiffs ’ Qualified Writt en Request (“QWR”) because plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to show they suffered damages as a result. See 12 U.S.C. § 2605(f)(1) (explaining damages available under RESPA for failure to respond to a QWR). The district court properly dismisse d plaintiffs’ Fair Credit Reporting Act4 15

- 16025

(“FCRA”) claim because plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to show that they
gave proper notice under the FCRA. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681s

– 2(b); see also Nelson v. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp ., 282 F.3d 1057, 10 59

- 60 (9th Cir. 2002) (the FCRA requires consumers to “filter” their complaints about inaccurate information throug h the credit reporting agency). The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ remaining claims because plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim for relief. See Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678; see a lso Cal. Civ. Code § 3412 (grounds for cancellation of instruments claim ); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code. § 761.020(c) (requirements for quiet title claim); Mindys Cosmetics, Inc. v. Dakar , 611 F.3d 590, 601 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth the elements of c onversion claim under California law); Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians v. NGV Gam ing, Ltd ., 531 F.3d 767, 774 (9th Cir. 2008) (elements for intentional interference with contracts under California law); Puentes v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc ., 72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 903, 908 ( Ct. App. 2008) (defining “unlawful” and “fraudulent” practices un der California’s Unfair Competition Law); Wutzke v. Bill Reid Painting Serv., Inc ., 198 Cal. Rptr. 418, 421 (Ct. App. 1984) (elements of forgery claim ). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued5 15

- 16025

in the opening brief, or a rguments and allegations raise d for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Plaintiffs’ pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.