696 Fed.Appx. 280 (9th Cir. 2017), 16-35862, Strong v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.
|Citation:||696 Fed.Appx. 280|
|Party Name:||Mary STRONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, AKA Freddie Mac, as trustee for securitized trust Freddie Mac Multiclass certificates, series 2998; et al., Defendants-Appellees.|
|Attorney:||Mary Strong, Pro Se Peter J. Salmon, Pite Duncan, LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Joseph A. Rohner, IV, Litigation Counsel, AFRCT, LLP, Portland, OR, for Defendants-Appellees Lehman Brothers Bank FSB, Aurora Commercial Corp., Mortgage Electronic R...|
|Judge Panel:||Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||August 17, 2017|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Submitted August 9, 2017 [*]
Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. Nos. 6:16-cv-01498-MC, 6:16-cv-01499-MC
Mary Strong, Pro Se
Peter J. Salmon, Pite Duncan, LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
Joseph A. Rohner, IV, Litigation Counsel, AFRCT, LLP, Portland, OR, for Defendants-Appellees Lehman Brothers Bank FSB, Aurora Commercial Corp., Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Nationstar Mortgage, LLC
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Mary Strong appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing her action against Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (" Freddie Mac" ) and other defendants related to a mortgage loan on her real property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
The district court properly dismissed as time-barred Strongs Truth in Lending Act (" TILA" ) rescission claim because Strong filed this action after the applicable statute of limitations had run. See 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f) (borrower has three years to rescind under TILA);
Miguel v. Country Funding Corp., 309 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir. 2002) (three-year limitation period under TILA is a statute of repose that once expired completely extinguishes the underlying right).
The district court properly dismissed Strongs intentional infliction of emotional...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP