Cardiello v. Money Store

Second Circuit

Cardiello v. Money Store

29 F. App'x 780

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided March 15, 2002·No. No. 01-7774·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be AFFIRMED substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Bu[781]*781chwald’s Memorandum and Order dated May 31, 2001. Appellants’ Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) claim is barred by the one-year statute of limitations. See 15 U.S.C. 1640(e). Moreover, Appellants’ claim fails on the merits; they have not demonstrated that Appellees violated TILA.

We affirm the District Court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs Appellants’ claim under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and their claim to enforce the Federal Trade Commission agreement for the reasons stated in Judge Buchwald’s Memorandum and Order.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be AFFIRMED substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Bu[781]*781chwald’s Memorandum and Order dated May 31, 2001. Appellants’ Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) claim is barred by the one-year statute of limitations. See 15 U.S.C. 1640(e). Moreover, Appellants’ claim fails on the merits; they have not demonstrated that Appellees violated TILA.

We affirm the District Court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs Appellants’ claim under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and their claim to enforce the Federal Trade Commission agreement for the reasons stated in Judge Buchwald’s Memorandum and Order.

Cardiello v. Money Store, 29 F. App'x 780 (2d Cir. 2002).

Pincite

29 F. App'x 780 (Cardiello v. Money Store) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related