MEMORANDUM **

Svetlana Tyshkevieh appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims related to her mortgage loans. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a denial of leave to amend. Rich v. Shrader, 823 F.3d 1205, 1208 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend because amendment of Tyshkevich’s claims would have been futile. See AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend can be denied if amendment would be futile); see also 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f) (providing a right of rescission within three years of the date of the consummation of a loan if the lender fails to make required disclosures to the borrower); Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 790, 792, 190 L.Ed.2d 650 (2015) (a borrower may exercise right of rescission by notifying the lender of borrower’s intent to rescind within three years after the transaction is consummated); Miguel v. Country Funding Corp., 309 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[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.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting judicial notice because the documents were matters of public record. See Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (court may take judicial notice of matters of public record).

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

AFFIRMED.