The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
10-15178•Aleksandr Volkov v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee Under the Pooling
10-15178Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDec 27, 2010
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ALEKSANDR VOLKOV,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY, as Trustee Under the Pooling
and Servicing Agreement Relating to
IMPAC Secured Assets Corp.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-15178
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-03915-JSW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Aleksandr Volkov appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action under the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). We have
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
10-15178 2
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. King v. California, 784
F.2d 910, 912 (9th Cir. 1986). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Volkov’s TILA claim as time-barred.
See 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e) (an action for damages must be brought within one year of
the date of alleged violation); King, 784 F.2d at 915. Contrary to Volkov’s
contention, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to apply
equitable tolling where any TILA violation could have been discovered at the time
of closing. See Leong v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (decision to
apply equitable tolling reviewed for abuse of discretion).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the claims,
without leave to amend, where, as here, amendment was futile. See Chased v.
Fleer/Skybox Int’l, LP, 300 F.3d 1083, 1087-88 (9th Cir. 2002).
Volkov’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.