Freda Tanuvasa v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Successor to Washington Mutual Savings Bank…

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
FREDA TANUVASA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION, Successor to
Washington Mutual Savings Bank
(“WaMu”); et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-55180
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02795-DDP-
AGR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Freda Tanuvasa appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing her
claims arising under the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). We have jurisdiction
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-55180 2
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 Tanuvasa’s claim seeking rescission
because the loan at issue was a “residential mortgage transaction” and therefore
could not be rescinded under TILA. See 15 U.S.C. § 1635(e)(1) (the right of
rescission does not apply to a residential mortgage transaction); id. § 1602(w)
(defining a residential mortgage transaction). Tanuvasa’s arguments to the
contrary are unpersuasive.
We do not consider issues that were not raised in the opening brief or claims
that were not included in the amended complaint. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d
1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999); Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th
Cir. 1997).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --