PATRICK MAJOR V. IMORTGAGE.COM. INC., No. 16-56016 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUN 6 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PATRICK T. MAJOR, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-56016 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:15-cv-02592-CAS-DTB v. MEMORANDUM* IMORTGAGE.COM. INC., its Successors and/or Assigns; DOES, 1-25 Inclusive, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 24, 2017** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. Patrick T. Major appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action seeking declaratory relief under the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Cervantes v. * 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). Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011) (motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)); Exp. Grp. v. Reef Indus., Inc., 54 F.3d 1466, 1469 (9th Cir. 1995) (motion to vacate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4)). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Major’s action as untimely because Major did not exercise his right of rescission under TILA within three years of when he 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 “§ 1635(f) completely extinguishes the right of rescission at the end of the 3-year period”). The district court properly denied Major’s motion to vacate the judgment under Rule 60(b)(4) because Major failed to establish grounds warranting relief. See United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 270-71 (2010) (explaining that a judgment is not void “simply because it is or may have been erroneous,” rather, “Rule 60(b)(4) applies only in the rare instance where a judgment is premised either on a certain type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice or the opportunity to be heard” (citations omitted)). AFFIRMED. 2 16-56016

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.