Naeem Ahmad v. World Savings Bank, Fsb

MEMORANDUM

Naeem Ahmad appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state claims arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a district court’s dismissal on the basis of the applicable statute of limitations, and for an abuse of discretion its decision whether to apply equitable tolling. Huynh v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 465 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Ahmad’s Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) claim as time-barred because Ahmad did not file his action within one year of the alleged violation. See 15 U.S.C. § 1640 (e) (an action for damages must be brought within one year of the alleged violation); King v. California, 784 F.2d 910, 914-15 (9th Cir.1986) (holding that “the limitations period in Section 1640(e) runs from the date of consummation of the transaction” and rejecting a “continuing violation” theory).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to apply equitable tolling to Ahmad’s TILA claim. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1045 (9th Cir.2011) (noting that equitable…