Peebles v. District of Columbia

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiffs amended complaint could not relate back because there was “no evidence in the record that the [defendant] had notice of the suit -within the 120 day period required by Rule 4(m).”
• barring homeowner’s claim under statute of limitations because homeowner filed notice of rescission with the servicer, Countrywide, because the homeowner did not know Countrywide was only a servicer until three years into the lawsuit
• barring homeowner's claim under statute of limitations because homeowner filed notice of rescission with the servicer, Countrywide, because the homeowner did not know Countrywide was only a servicer until three years into the lawsuit
• “[S]ection 1635(f) represents an ‘absolute limitation on rescission actions’ which bars any claims filed more than three years after the consummation of the transaction.”
• TILA’s right of rescission expires three years after the date of consummation of the transaction or upon the sale of the property, whichever occurs first
• “[Section] 1635(f) is a statute of repose, depriving the courts of subject matter jurisdiction when a § 1635 claim is brought outside the three-year limitation period.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).