
    Stephen H. JOHNSON; Paula A. Johnson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as Successor-In-Interest to Washington Mutual Bank Its Successors and/or Assigns; Does, 1-25, Inclusive, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-56156
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 11, 2017 
    
    Filed July 18, 2017
    Stephen H. Johnson, Pro Se
    Paula A. Johnson, Pro Se
    Brian H. Newman, Dykema Gossett LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Jill Margaret Wheaton, Esquire, Senior Litigating Attorney, Dykema Gossett PLLC, Ann Arbor, MI, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Stephen H. Johnson and Paula A. Johnson appeal pro se from the district court’s order dismissing their action seeking declaratory relief under the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrymde Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Franklin v. Terr, 201 F.3d 1098, 1100 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

Dismissal of the Johnsons’ action alleging a TILA claim for rescission was proper because the Johnsons did not exercise their right of rescission within three years of when they consummated the loan transaction. See 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f); Beach v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, 523 U.S. 410, 412-13, 419, 118 S.Ct. 1408, 140 L.Ed.2d 566 (1998) (explaining that “§ 1635(f) completely extinguishes the right of rescission at the end of the 3-year period”).

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