FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 17 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
REID L. TAMAYOSE; NADINE K. No. 12-15267
TAMAYOSE,
D
Plaintiffs - Appellants, .C. No. 1:10-cv-00185-JMS-BMK
V.
MEMORANDUM*
OPTION ONE MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, its successors and
assigns now known as Sand Canyon
Corporation; H&R BLOCK BANK,
Defendants - Appellees,
V.
RESIDENTIAL CREDIT SOLUTIONS,
INC.,
Defendant-third-party-
plaintiff - Appellee,
V.
OLD REPUBLIC TITLE & ESCROW OF
HAWAII, LTD.,
Third-party-defendant -
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
J. Michael Seabright, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 20, 2014**
U. Of Hawaii, Manoa
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reid and Nadine Tamayose appeal from the district court’s grant of
summary judgment for defendants in their Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) claim
for rescission. We review de novo an order granting summary judgment, Doe v.
Abbott Labs., 571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2009), and affirm.
Under applicable federal law, the parties who seek to rescind a loan
agreement under TILA carry the burden of proving that they could tender the loan
proceeds to extinguish the loan. Yamamoto v. Bank of N.Y., 329 F.3d 1167, 1171
(9th Cir. 2003). The Tamayoses failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that
they could tender the proceeds of the loan in the event that the court granted them
rescission. We do not discuss the Tamayoses’ arguments that Yamamoto should be
overruled. A three-judge panel is bound by Yamamoto “until such time as the
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2
Supreme Court or an en banc panel of [this] court revisits this issue.” Covarrubias
Teposte v. Holder, 632 F.3d 1049, 1056 n.2 (9th Cir. 2011).
AFFIRMED.
3