FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 03 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEFFREY J. RICE, No. 09-35889
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:08-cv-03131-PA
v.
MEMORANDUM *
HOUSEHOLD FINANCE CORP., II; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Owen M. Panner, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2011 **
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Jeffrey J. Rice appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in
his action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. United States v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 457
*
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).
F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.
Summary judgment was proper on Rice’s Truth in Lending Act claims
seeking rescission and damages because Rice brought his action more than three
years after the loan’s closing and more than one year after his alleged notice
seeking rescission, and, thus, these claims were time-barred. See 15 U.S.C. §
1635(f) (“An obligor’s right of rescission shall expire three years after the date of
consummation of the transaction or upon the sale of the property . . . .”); 15 U.S.C.
§ 1640(e) (an action for damages must be brought within one year of the date of
alleged violation).
Contrary to Rice’s contentions, the security interest did not become void
upon his unilateral notification of cancellation less than one month before the
foreclosure sale. See Yamamoto v. Bank of N.Y., 329 F.3d 1167, 1172 (9th Cir.
2003).
Rice’s remaining contentions, including those concerning discovery and
defendants’ lack of standing to initiate foreclosure proceedings, are unpersuasive.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, nor arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
2 09-35889