From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sotanski v. HSBC Bank USA, NA

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Dec 22, 2016
No. 15-16798 (9th Cir. Dec. 22, 2016)

Opinion

No. 15-16798

12-22-2016

JANE M. SOTANSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HSBC BANK USA, NA, as Trustee for the Holders of the Deutsche Alt-A Securities, Inc. Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-OA4; RTS PACIFIC, INC., Defendants-Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 5:15-cv-01489-LHK MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding 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.

Jane M. Sotanski appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing her action alleging Truth in Lending Act ("TILA") and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim 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 Sotanski's TILA claim for rescission because Sotanski did not deliver a notice of rescission within three years of consummation of the loan. See 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f) (imposing three-year period to exercise right of rescission under TILA); Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 790, 792 (2015) (a borrower exercises her right of rescission by notifying the creditor of intent to rescind within three years after the transaction is consummated). The district court properly dismissed Sotanski's wrongful foreclosure claim because Sotanski's claim was contingent on her TILA claim not being time barred. See Yvanova v. New Century Mortg. Corp., 365 P.3d 845, 850 (Cal. 2016) (explaining that the beneficial holder of a deed of trust can initiate nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings under Cal. Civ. Code § 2924).

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.


Summaries of

Sotanski v. HSBC Bank USA, NA

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Dec 22, 2016
No. 15-16798 (9th Cir. Dec. 22, 2016)
Case details for

Sotanski v. HSBC Bank USA, NA

Case Details

Full title:JANE M. SOTANSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HSBC BANK USA, NA, as Trustee…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Dec 22, 2016

Citations

No. 15-16798 (9th Cir. Dec. 22, 2016)

Citing Cases

Silas v. Argent Mortg. Co.

The use of a third party lender to fund a loan does not preclude the consummation of a valid contract between…

Mohanna v. Bank of Am., N.A.

In addition, because § 1635(f) is a statute of repose, it is not subject to tolling. Mohanna, 2016 WL 1729996…