FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 25 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAMUEL SMITH, No. 10-16677
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00648-GEB-
GGH
v.
GMAC MORTGAGE CO., Affiliates and MEMORANDUM *
subscribers,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Samuel Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action alleging Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and Home Ownership and
Equity Protection Act (“HOEPA”) claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 1291. We review de novo. King v. California, 784 F.2d 910, 912 (9th Cir.
1986). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Smith’s TILA claim seeking damages
as time-barred because Smith did not file his action within one year of the alleged
violations. See 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e) (an action for damages must be brought within
one year of the alleged violation).
The district court properly dismissed Smith’s TILA claim seeking rescission
because the loan at issue was a “residential mortgage transaction” and therefore
could not be rescinded under TILA. 15 U.S.C. § 1635(e)(1) (the right of rescission
does not apply to a “residential mortgage transaction”); id. § 1602(x) (defining a
“residential mortgage transaction”). Likewise, the district court properly dismissed
Smith’s HOEPA claim. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1639, 1602(bb)(1) (exempting
“residential mortgage transactions” from the requirements of HOEPA).
Smith’s remaining contentions, including those concerning fraud, are
unpersuasive.
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.
2 10-16677