Rajesh Varma v. America's Wholesale Lender , 693 F. App'x 564 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAJESH VARMA; MAHIMA VARMA, No. 16-56440
Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. 5:15-cv-02608-JGB-SP
v.
MEMORANDUM*
AMERICA’S WHOLESALE LENDER, Its
Successors and/or Assigns,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
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
*
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).
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 15 U.S.C.
§ 1635(f); Beach v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, 523 U.S. 410, 412-13, 419 (1998)
(explaining that Ҥ 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.
2 16-56440