Vladimir Brunat; Dagmar Brunat v. Onewest Bank Fsb; Deutsche Bank National Trust Company; Unknown Parties

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VLADIMIR BRUNAT; DAGMAR
BRUNAT,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
ONEWEST BANK FSB; DEUTSCHE
BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY;
UNKNOWN PARTIES,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-16180
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01796-FJM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Frederick J. Martone, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 14, 2012**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, McKEOWN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
FILED
MAY 22 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
Dagmar and Vladimir Brunat obtained a loan from IndyMac that was
subsequently assigned to Deutsche Bank. The Brunats argue that the district court
erred in granting summary judgment to IndyMac on their claims that IndyMac
violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1635, by failing to provide
the Brunats two copies of their right to rescind the loan; and that their loan is
repayable in the form of real property upon recission. We review de novo the
district court’s grant of summary judgment. Alaska Right to Life Political Action
Comm. v. Feldman, 504 F.3d 840, 848 (9th Cir. 2007).
There is no evidence that IndyMac failed to provide two copies of the right
to rescind. IndyMac offers a document signed by the Brunats in September 2006,
acknowledging that they received two copies of the right to rescind. The only
evidence that the Brunats offer that they did not get the notice is a conclusory
statement that Vladimir Brunat does “not recall” getting any notice. “When
opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by
the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that
version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.”
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).
As IndyMac did not violate TILA, the Brunats have no right to rescind, and
we need not consider whether the loan is repayable in real property.

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --