In Galindo v. Financo Financial, Inc. (N.D.Cal. 2008) 2008 WL 5170204, Judge Alsup refused to allow a consumer to pursue rescission based on Civil Code § 1632 when the consumer had refinanced the loan at issue.

In her second amended complaint, Galindo alleged that that the “broker defendants failed to provide any disclosures in the Spanish language.” and that “said Defendant’s must allow plaintiffs to rescind such loans.”  Galindo has amended her allegation to state that “the Lender Defendants . . . must allow Plaintiffs to rescind such loans”.  As discussed above, because Galindo has refinanced the the loans, there is nothing to rescind.  Because this amendment would be futile, there is no need to address whether the amendment would also be prejudicial.  Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend her Civil Code § 1632 claim is DENIED, and thus her Section 1632 claim is DISMISSED.