STEVEN YOUNG V. NORTHWEST TRUSTEE SERVICES INC, No. 15-35202 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 22 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STEVEN K. YOUNG; SUSAN KRPATAYOUNG, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-35202 D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01807-MJP Plaintiffs-Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. NORTHWEST TRUSTEE SERVICES INC., Defendant, and GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Marsha J. Pechman, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2016** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. * 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). Steven K. Young and Susan Krpata-Young appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Doe v. Abbott Labs., 571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed as time-barred the Youngs’ TILA claim for rescission because the Youngs failed to allege facts sufficient to show that they delivered a timely notice of rescission. See 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f) (a borrower’s right to rescind a transaction expires three years after “the date of consummation of the transaction”); Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 790, 792 (2015) (a borrower exercises her right of rescission by notifying the creditor of her intention to rescind, whether or not the borrower has filed an action in court). The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the Youngs’ action without 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). 2 15-35202 We do not consider matters 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. 3 15-35202

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.