RAJESH VARMA V. AMERICA'S WHOLESALE LENDER, No. 16-56440 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 3 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAJESH VARMA; MAHIMA VARMA, Plaintiffs-Appellants, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-56440 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 “§ 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

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.