Ginger L. Hughes v. Bravo Credit Corporation;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GINGER L. HUGHES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BRAVO CREDIT CORPORATION; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-16732
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-02332-JAM-
KJM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Ginger L. Hughes appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in her action under the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Feldman v. Allstate Ins. Co., 322
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-16732 2
F.3d 660, 665 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Hughes’s TILA
claim seeking damages because her action, filed more than one year after the
alleged violation, was time-barred. See 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e) (an action for
damages must be brought within one year of the date of the alleged violation); see
also King v. California, 784 F.2d 910, 915 (9th Cir. 1986).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Hughes’s TILA
claim seeking rescission because Hughes admitted that she could not tender the
proceeds of the loan in the event that the court granted her this remedy. See
Yamamoto v. Bank of N.Y., 329 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2003). (“[I]n applying
TILA, a trial judge has the discretion to condition rescission on tender by the
borrower of the property he [or she] had received from the lender.”) (internal
quotation marks and brackets omitted).
Hughes’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --