Case Name: Stephen H. JOHNSON; Paula A. Johnson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as Successor-In-Interest to Washington Mutual Bank 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: 2017-07-18
Citations: 694 F. App'x 521
Docket Number: No. 16-56156
Parties: Stephen H. JOHNSON; Paula A. Johnson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as Successor-In-Interest to Washington Mutual Bank Its Successors and/or Assigns; Does, 1-25, Inclusive, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 694
Pages: 521–522

Head Matter:
Stephen H. JOHNSON; Paula A. Johnson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as Successor-In-Interest to Washington Mutual Bank Its Successors and/or Assigns; Does, 1-25, Inclusive, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-56156
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 11, 2017
Filed July 18, 2017
Stephen H. Johnson, Pro Se
Paula A. Johnson, Pro Se
Brian H. Newman, Dykema Gossett LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Jill Margaret Wheaton, Esquire, Senior Litigating Attor ney, Dykema Gossett PLLC, Ann Arbor, MI, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, 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
Stephen H. Johnson and Paula A. Johnson appeal pro se from the district court's order dismissing their action seeking declaratory relief under the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrymde Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Franklin v. Terr, 201 F.3d 1098, 1100 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
Dismissal of the Johnsons' action alleging a TILA claim for rescission was proper because the Johnsons did not exercise their right of rescission within three years of when they consummated the loan transaction. See 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f); Beach v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, 523 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").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.