
    Steven K. YOUNG; Susan Krpata-Young, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NORTHWEST TRUSTEE SERVICES INC., Defendant, and Green Tree Servicing, LLC; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-35202
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 22, 2016
    Steven K. Young, Pro Se
    Susan Krpata-Young, Pro Se
    William G. Fig, Laurie Rebecca Hager, Attorneys, Sussman Shank LLP, Portland, OR, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Steven K. Young and Susan Krpata-Young appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Doe v. Abbott Labs., 571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed as time-barred the Youngs’ TILA claim for rescission because the Youngs failed to allege facts sufficient to show that they delivered a timely notice of rescission. See 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f) (a borrower’s right to rescind a transaction expires three years after “the date of consummation of the transaction”); Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 790, 792, 190 L.Ed.2d 650 (2015) (a borrower exercises her right of rescission by notifying the creditor of her intention to rescind, whether or not the borrower has filed an action in court).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the Youngs’ action without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a district court can dismiss without leave to amend where amendment would be futile).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     