GIBSON, JR., WILLIAM D., PEOPLE v

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that because TILA does not provide a statute of limitations for rescission enforcement claims, the state contract law statute of limitations applies
• finding that the plaintiff had timely exercised his right to rescind by notifying creditor within three years of consummation of (continued . . .
• explaining that “[l]eave to amend can and should generally be given, even in the absence of such a request by the party,” unless “the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts”
• applying state catch-all statute of 15 ||limitations. to a rescission enforcement claim where the plaintiffs timely notified the 16 ||creditor in writing of their intention to rescind within the three-year TILA limitations 17 j/period
• applying Washington's six-year contract statute of limitations to TILA rescission enforcement claims
• “Leave to amend can and should generally be given, 14 even in the absence of such a request by the party,” so long as amendment would not be futile

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).