TOYE v. NEWREZ LLC (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-09-22No. No. 20-55935

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the TILA rescission claim as time-barred, holding that California's four-year contract statute of limitations applied and the plaintiffs failed to bring their action within that period.

Mikel and Louise Toye sued NewRez LLC for violations of the Truth in Lending Act, seeking to rescind a loan. The district court dismissed their case as time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations. The appellate court reviewed the dismissal and found that because TILA does not establish its own statute of limitations for rescission claims, California's four-year contract statute of limitations applied instead. Since the Toyes failed to file suit within that four-year window, the dismissal was proper.

The court applied California's delayed discovery rule, which allows a statute of limitations period to begin running only when a plaintiff knew or should have known of both an injury and a wrongful cause. However, the Toyes did not meet this standard or raise timely arguments challenging the district court's application of the statute of limitations. As a result, the lower court's decision to dismiss the action was upheld.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether TILA rescission claims are subject to a statute of limitations
What statute of limitations applies when TILA provides none
Whether the plaintiffs' claim was timely filed
Application of California's delayed discovery rule to determine when a cause of action accrues

Procedural posture

The Toyes appealed a district court dismissal of their TILA action on statute of limitations grounds.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Mikel A. Toye and Louise Toye appeal from the district courts judgment dismissing their action alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal based on the statute of limitations. Hoang v. Bank of Am., N.A., 910 F.3d 1096, 1100 (9th Cir. 2018). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ action as time-barred because plaintiffs failed to bring their action to enforce their recission rights within the applicable statute of limitations. See id. at 1100-02 (explaining that because TILA does not provide a statute of limitations for rescission enforcement claims, the state contract law statute of limitations applies); see also Cal. Civ. Code § 337(a) (actions upon a contract are subject to a four-year statute of limitations); Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 35 Cal.4th 797, 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 661, 110 P.3d 914, 917 (2005) (under the delayed discovery rule, cause of action accrues and statute of limitations begins to run “when the plaintiff has reason to suspect an injury and some wrongful cause, unless the plaintiff pleads and proves that a reasonable investigation at that time would not have revealed a factual basis for [the] cause of action”).

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.