22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T468,MEMORANDUM Reid and Nadine Tamayose appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendants in their Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) claim for rescission. We review de novo an order granting summary judgment, Doe v. Abbott Labs., 571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir.2009), and affirm. Under applicable federal law, the parties who seek to rescind a loan agreement under TILA carry the burden of proving that they could tender the loan proceeds to extinguish the loan. Yamamoto v. Bank of N.Y., 329 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir.2003). The Tamayoses failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that they could tender the proceeds of the loan in the event that the court granted them rescission. We do not discuss the Tamayoses’ arguments that Yamamoto should be overruled. A three judge panel is bound by Yamamoto “until such time as the Supreme Court or an en banc panel of [this] court revisits this issue.” Covarrubias Te poste v. Holder, 632 F.3d 1049 , 1056 n. 2 (9th Cir.2011). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T495,

MEMORANDUM

Reid and Nadine Tamayose appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendants in their Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) claim for rescission. We review de novo an order granting summary judgment, Doe v. Abbott Labs., 571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir.2009), and affirm.

Under applicable federal law, the parties who seek to rescind a loan agreement under TILA carry the burden of proving that they could tender the loan proceeds to extinguish the loan. Yamamoto v. Bank of N.Y., 329 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir.2003). The Tamayoses failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that they could tender the proceeds of the loan in the event that the court granted them rescission. We do not discuss the Tamayoses’ arguments that Yamamoto should be overruled. A three judge panel is bound by Yamamoto “until such time as the Supreme Court or an en banc panel of [this] court revisits this issue.” Covarrubias Te poste v. Holder, 632 F.3d 1049 , 1056 n. 2 (9th Cir.2011).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.