Laura Gens v. Wachovia Mortgage Corporation

503 F. App'x 533
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 3, 2013
Docket11-16476
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 503 F. App'x 533 (Laura Gens v. Wachovia Mortgage Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Laura Gens v. Wachovia Mortgage Corporation, 503 F. App'x 533 (9th Cir. 2013).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Laura Gens appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal. King v. California, 784 F.2d 910, 912 (9th Cir.1986). We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s decision whether to apply equitable tolling. Huynh v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 465 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir.2006). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Gens’s Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) claims for damages and rescission as time-barred because Gens did not file her action within three years of the alleged violation. See 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e) (an action for damages under TILA must be brought within one year of the alleged violation); 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f) (permitting up to three years to rescind under TILA). Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to apply equitable tolling to Gens’s TILA claim seeking damages because Gens did not act with due diligence. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1045 (9th Cir.2011) (noting that equitable tolling applies “in situations where, despite all due diligence, the party invoking equitable tolling is unable to obtain vital information bearing on the existence of the claim” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider whether the district court properly concluded that Gens’s state law claims were preempted by the Home Owners’ Loan Act because Gens neither *534 raised nor argued the issue in her opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

Related

Complot v. Citibank NA
D. Arizona, 2025

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
503 F. App'x 533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laura-gens-v-wachovia-mortgage-corporation-ca9-2013.