Case Name: John Carlos TORRES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, Its Successors and/or Assigns; Does, 1-25 Inclusive, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-03
Citations: 693 F. App'x 567
Docket Number: No. 16-56023
Parties: John Carlos TORRES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, Its Successors and/or Assigns; Does, 1-25 Inclusive, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 693
Pages: 567–568

Head Matter:
John Carlos TORRES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, Its Successors and/or Assigns; Does, 1-25 Inclusive, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-56023
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 26, 2017
Filed July 3, 2017
John Carlos Torres, Pro Se
Howard D. Hall, Attorney, Green & Hall, LLP, Santa Ana, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
John Carlos Torres appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action seeking rescission of his home loan due to alleged violations of the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Dumas v. Kipp, 90 F.3d 386, 389 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Torres' action because Torres' TILA rescission claim is time-barred. See 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f) (borrower has three years to rescind under TILA); Miguel v. Country Funding Corp., 309 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir. 2002) (three-year limitation period under TILA is a statute of repose that once expired completely extinguishes the underlying right).
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.