NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OCT 10 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
STACY ENID HERNANDEZ, No. 12-56865
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-02911-CAS-
FFM
v.
RECONTRUST COMPANY NA; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 23, 2014**
Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Stacy Enid Hernandez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her action alleging Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) claims. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Cervantes v.
Countrywide Home Loans Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We may
*
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).
affirm on any ground supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055,
1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Hernandez’s TILA claim for rescission
as time-barred because Hernandez did not file her action within three years of the
alleged violation. See McOmie-Gray v. Bank of Am. Home Loans, FKA, 667 F.3d
1325, 1326 (9th Cir. 2012) (15 U.S.C. § 1635(f) is an absolute three-year bar on
rescission actions under TILA, regardless of when the borrower sends notice of
rescission). Dismissal of Hernandez’s TILA claim for damages was also proper
because the claim was time-barred and Hernandez did not properly allege due
diligence. See 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e) (an action for damages under TILA must be
brought within one year of the alleged violation); Cervantes, 656 F.3d at 1045
(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 deny Hernandez’s request for reconsideration of the denial of her
petition for writ of mandamus, which is set forth in her opening brief.
AFFIRMED.
2 12-56865