Aleksandr Volkov v. Deutsche Bank National Trust C ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                           FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            DEC 27 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    ALEKSANDR VOLKOV,                                No. 10-15178
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:09-cv-03915-JSW
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
    COMPANY, as Trustee Under the Pooling
    and Servicing Agreement Relating to
    IMPAC Secured Assets Corp.; et al.,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of California
    Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted December 14, 2010 **
    Before:        GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    Aleksandr Volkov appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
    dismissing his action under the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). We have
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. King v. California, 
    784 F.2d 910
    , 912 (9th Cir. 1986). We affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed Volkov’s TILA claim as time-barred.
    See 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e) (an action for damages must be brought within one year of
    the date of alleged violation); 
    King, 784 F.2d at 915
    . Contrary to Volkov’s
    contention, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to apply
    equitable tolling where any TILA violation could have been discovered at the time
    of closing. See Leong v. Potter, 
    347 F.3d 1117
    , 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (decision to
    apply equitable tolling reviewed for abuse of discretion).
    The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the claims,
    without leave to amend, where, as here, amendment was futile. See Chased v.
    Fleer/Skybox Int’l, LP, 
    300 F.3d 1083
    , 1087-88 (9th Cir. 2002).
    Volkov’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    10-15178