Case Name: Michael Edward WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-16
Citations: 695 F. App'x 327
Docket Number: No. 16-16450
Parties: Michael Edward WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 695
Pages: 327–328

Head Matter:
Michael Edward WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-16450
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted August 9, 2017
Filed August 16, 2017
Michael Edward Williams, Pro Se
Darren Brenner, Akerman Senterfitt LLP, Las Vegas, NV, Marc James Ayers, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Birmingham, AL, for Defendants-Appellees Bank of America, N.A., Countrywide Home Loan, Inc.
Dana Jonathon Nitz, Esquire, Attorney, Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, Marc James Ayers, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Birmingham, AL, for Defendant-Appellee Bank of New York Mellon
Dana Jonathon Nitz, Esquire, Attorney, Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee Residential Credit Solutions, Inc.
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, 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
Michael Edward Williams appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law violations related to Williams' mortgage. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of the statute of limitations and under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Williams' Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), intentional misrepresentation, and rescission based upon fraud claims because these claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations and Williams failed to plead facts demonstrating that equitable tolling should apply. See 12 U.S.C. § 2614 (RESPA claims under 12 U.S.C. § 2607 are subject to a one-year statute of limitations); 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e) (TILA damages claims are subject to a one-year statute of limitations); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(3)(d) (fraud claims under Nevada law are subject to a three-year statute of limitations); see also Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1045 (9th Cir. 2011) (federal standard for equitable tolling); Howard v. Howard, 69 Nev. 12, 239 P.2d 584, 588-89 (1962) (fraud claim accrues under Nevada law when the defrauded person knows, or could have known through proper diligence, of the fraud).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Gardner v. Martino, 563 F.3d 981, 990 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review and permitting denial of leave to amend where amendment would be futile).
We do not consider issues not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. 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.