Shauna Shoop; James L. Shoop v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Indenture Trustee for American Home…

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SHAUNA SHOOP; JAMES L. SHOOP,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY, as Indenture Trustee for
American Home Mortgage Investment
Trust 2006-1, Mortgage-Backed Notes
Series 2006-1,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 10-16440
D.C. No. 1:10-cv-01049-LJO-DLB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Shauna Shoop and James L. Shoop appeal pro se from the district court’s
judgment sua sponte dismissing their action arising out of foreclosure proceedings.
FILED
JAN 06 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-16440 2
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Omar v.
Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the Shoops’ Truth in Lending Act
claims as time-barred. See 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f) (right of rescission must be
exercised within three years of consummation of the transaction); 15 U.S.C.
§ 1640(e) (an action for damages must be brought within one year of the alleged
violation).
The district court did not err by dismissing the Shoops’ action sua sponte for
failure to state a claim despite not providing the Shoops notice and an opportunity
to oppose dismissal. See Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 638 (9th
Cir. 1988) (trial court may sua sponte dismiss for failure to state a claim without
notice or an opportunity to respond where “the plaintiffs cannot possibly win
relief” (alteration, citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The Shoops’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, nor allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett
v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --