Stephen Johnson v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 18 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEPHEN H. JOHNSON; PAULA A. No. 16-56156
JOHNSON,
D.C. No. 5:15-cv-02609-DDP-JEM
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as
Successor-In-Interest to Washington Mutual
Bank Its Successors and/or Assigns; DOES,
1-25, Inclusive,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 11, 2017**
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Stephen H. Johnson and Paula A. Johnson appeal pro se from the district
court’s order dismissing their action seeking declaratory relief under the Truth in
*
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).
Lending Act (“TILA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrywide
Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We may affirm on any
ground supported by the record. Franklin v. Terr, 201 F.3d 1098, 1100 n.2 (9th
Cir. 2000). We affirm.
Dismissal of the Johnsons’ action alleging a TILA claim for rescission was
proper because the Johnsons 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”).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-56156