Niki-Alexander Shetty; v. Thomas Block;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NIKI-ALEXANDER SHETTY; et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
THOMAS BLOCK; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-55138
D.C. No.
2:21-cv-05796-DMG-KS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 18, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: TASHIMA, CHRISTEN, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs-Appellants Niki-Alexander Shetty, Adina Zaharescu, and the Niki-
Alexander Family Trust appeal from the district court’s order dismissing their
complaint for lack of federal jurisdiction. The court held that Plaintiffs-Appellants’
rescission cause of action under the federal Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
AUG 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
1635 et seq. (“TILA”), is barred by the statute of limitations and, having dismissed
the only federal cause of action on the merits, declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiffs-Appellants’ remaining state-law claims. We review
dismissal on statute of limitations grounds de novo, Gregg v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety,
870 F.3d 883, 886–87 (9th Cir. 2017), and we affirm.
The parties agree that, borrowing from California contract law, a four-year
statute of limitations applies. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 337(a); DelCostello v.
Int’l Bhd. Of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 158 (1983). The only question on appeal is
whether Plaintiffs-Appellants’ rescission cause of action under TILA arose in
2008, when New Haven Financial, Inc. refused to rescind Zaharescu’s home
mortgage loan, or in 2021, when Defendant-Appellee Thomas Block took steps to
enforce it. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1635(b), the rescission cause of action arose in 2008.
See Hoang v. Bank of Am., 910 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 2018).
15 U.S.C. § 1635(b) provides that “[w]ithin 20 days after receipt of a notice
of rescission, the creditor shall return to the obligor any money or property given
as earnest money, downpayment, or otherwise, and shall take any action necessary
or appropriate to reflect the termination of any security interest created under the
transaction.” In Hoang, we explained that § 1635(b) meant the borrower’s
rescission cause of action arose when the lender “failed to take any action to wind
up the loan within 20 days of receiving [the borrower’s] notice of rescission.” 910

-- 2 of 3 --

3
F.3d at 1102. Thus, in this case, the rescission cause of action arose in 2008, when
New Haven Financial, Inc. failed to take any action to rescind the loan and
terminate the security interest within 20 days after it received Zaharescu’s July
2008 notice of rescission. Plaintiffs-Appellants’ TILA cause of action is therefore
time-barred.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --