Martin Mondragon v. Bank of America, N.A. ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 16 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTIN D. MONDRAGON, No. 19-56087
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:16-cv-02462-R-KK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
BANK OF AMERICA, NA; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 2, 2020**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Martin D. Mondragon appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his foreclosure action alleging violations of the Truth In Lending Act
(“TILA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
dismissal based on the statute of limitations. Lukovsky v. City & County of San
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir. 2008). We may affirm on any basis
supported by the record. Kwan v. SanMedica Int’l, 854 F.3d 1088, 1093 (9th Cir.
2017). We affirm.
Dismissal of Mondragon’s TILA claims was proper because Mondragon
failed to bring an action to enforce his recission rights within four years of the
receipt of defendants’ refusal to rescind the loan. See Hoang v. Bank of Am., N.A.,
910 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2018) (explaining that because TILA does not provide a
statute of limitations for rescission enforcement claims, the state contract law
statute of limitations applies); Cal. Civ. Code § 337(a) (actions upon a contract are
subject to a four-year statute of limitations).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Mondragon’s
motion for default judgment against New American Funding, Inc. because
Mondragon failed to state a plausible TILA claim against this defendant. See Eitel
v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1989) (standard of review and factors
district courts must consider in determining whether default judgment should be
granted).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Mondragon’s
motions to reconsider the district court’s orders dated March 21, 2019 because
Mondragon failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,
2 19-56087
1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth elements for reconsideration under Rules 59(e)
and 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).
Mondragon’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 34) is denied as
unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
3 19-56087