Damon Lyman v. Loan Correspondents Inc.
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Damon and Claudia Lyman appeal from the district court’s order dismissing on the pleadings their action alleging violations o'f the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act (“RE SPA”), and California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Dunlap v. Credit Prot. Ass’n, LP, 419 F.3d 1011 , 1012 n. 1 (9th Cir.2005) (per curiam), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the Lymans’ TILA damages claim as time-barred because their action was not filed within one year of the alleged violations. 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, 915 (9th Cir.1986) (holding that “the limitations period in Section 1640(e) runs from the date of consummation of the transaction”).
The district court properly dismissed the Lymans’ RE SPA claim as time-barred because their action was not filed within one year of the alleged violations. See 12 U.S.C. § 2607 (prohibition against kickbacks and unearned fees); 12 U.S.C. § 2614 (proscribing a one-year statute of limitations for violations of…