Case Name: Rajesh VARMA; Mahima Varma, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMERICA'S WHOLESALE LENDER, Its Successors and/or Assigns, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-03
Citations: 693 F. App'x 564
Docket Number: No. 16-56440
Parties: Rajesh VARMA; Mahima Varma, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMERICA’S WHOLESALE LENDER, Its Successors and/or Assigns, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 693
Pages: 564–565

Head Matter:
Rajesh VARMA; Mahima Varma, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMERICA’S WHOLESALE LENDER, Its Successors and/or Assigns, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-56440
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 26, 2017
Filed July 3, 2017
Rajesh Varma, Pro Se
Mahima Varma, Pro Se
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
Rajesh Varma and Mahima Varma appeal pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing sua sponte their action alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA") and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the Varmas' action alleging a TILA claim for rescission because the Varmas did not exercise their right of rescission within three years of when they consummated the loan transaction. See 16 U.S.C. § 1636(f); Beach v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, 623 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").
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a district court can dismiss without leave to amend where amendment would be futile).
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.