ROLF NIEUWEJAAR; GERD NIEUWEJAAR, husband and wife v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROLF NIEUWEJAAR; GERD
NIEUWEJAAR, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-35387
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01663-JLR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 23, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Rolf Nieuwejaar and Gerd Nieuwejaar appeal from the district court’s
judgment dismissing their action alleging a Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) claim
for rescission. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Serra v. Lappin, 600
* 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
NOV 1 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-35387
F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the Nieuwejaars’ action as time-barred
because the Nieuwejaars did not send a notice of rescission to defendants within
three years of consummation of the loan. See 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f) (providing a
right of rescission within three years of the date of the consummation of a loan if
the lender fails to make required disclosures to the borrower); Jesinoski v.
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 790, 792 (2015) (a borrower may
exercise right of rescission by notifying the lender of borrower’s intent to rescind
within three years after the transaction is consummated); Miguel v. Country
Funding Corp., 309 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[Section] 1635(f) is a statute
of repose, depriving the courts of subject matter jurisdiction when a § 1635 claim
is brought outside the three-year limitation period.”). We reject as without merit
the Nieuwejaars’ contention that the subject loan transaction was not
consummated.
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --