Court Opinion

ID: 9640259
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:01:56.765989+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:25.115621
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        AUG 22 2023
                                                                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NIKI-ALEXANDER SHETTY; et al.,                   No.   22-55138

                Plaintiffs-Appellants,           D.C. No.
                                                 2:21-cv-05796-DMG-KS
 v.

THOMAS BLOCK; et al.,                            MEMORANDUM*

                Defendants-Appellees.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Central District of California
                      Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted August 18, 2023**
                               Pasadena, California

Before: TASHIMA, CHRISTEN, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

      Plaintiffs-Appellants Niki-Alexander Shetty, Adina Zaharescu, and the Niki-

Alexander Family Trust appeal from the district court’s order dismissing their

complaint for lack of federal jurisdiction. The court held that Plaintiffs-Appellants’

rescission cause of action under the federal Truth in Lending Act, 15 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).
1635 et seq. (“TILA”), is barred by the statute of limitations and, having dismissed

the only federal cause of action on the merits, declined to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over Plaintiffs-Appellants’ remaining state-law claims. We review

dismissal on statute of limitations grounds de novo, Gregg v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety,

870 F.3d 883, 886–87 (9th Cir. 2017), and we affirm.

      The parties agree that, borrowing from California contract law, a four-year

statute of limitations applies. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 337(a); DelCostello v.

Int’l Bhd. Of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 158 (1983). The only question on appeal is

whether Plaintiffs-Appellants’ rescission cause of action under TILA arose in

2008, when New Haven Financial, Inc. refused to rescind Zaharescu’s home

mortgage loan, or in 2021, when Defendant-Appellee Thomas Block took steps to

enforce it. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1635(b), the rescission cause of action arose in 2008.

See Hoang v. Bank of Am., 910 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 2018).

      15 U.S.C. § 1635(b) provides that “[w]ithin 20 days after receipt of a notice

of rescission, the creditor shall return to the obligor any money or property given

as earnest money, downpayment, or otherwise, and shall take any action necessary

or appropriate to reflect the termination of any security interest created under the

transaction.” In Hoang, we explained that § 1635(b) meant the borrower’s

rescission cause of action arose when the lender “failed to take any action to wind

up the loan within 20 days of receiving [the borrower’s] notice of rescission.” 910

                                          2
F.3d at 1102. Thus, in this case, the rescission cause of action arose in 2008, when

New Haven Financial, Inc. failed to take any action to rescind the loan and

terminate the security interest within 20 days after it received Zaharescu’s July

2008 notice of rescission. Plaintiffs-Appellants’ TILA cause of action is therefore

time-barred.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          3