Steven W. Bernstein v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.

In light of this Court's ruling on Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 790, 190 L. Ed. 2d 650 (2015) was it error for the trial court to dismiss the case after the trial court stated". I find Plaintiff has stated a plausible claim for entitlement to the benefit of the TILA three-year rescission rule" [Appendix B, p.151? Was it error for the trial Court and the 11th Circuit to dismiss/affirm, when the Jesinoski case shows that "giving notice alone affects a rescission by operation of law"; and that Mr. Bernstein "did not have to file a lawsuit to compel rescission"? Mr. Bernstein showed that he had not received the Right to Cancel documents at closing, and that the Annual Percentage Rate and Finance Charges exceeded TILA tolerances, was it error for the trial court to hold that the security interest and note do not automatically became void after notice? Is it error when the trial court/appellate courts make a ruling that there is a one year limitations period beginning twenty days after notice of rescission is ignored, and ignore that Mr. Bernstein had filed a civil action? Is it error when numerous United States District Courts throughout the United States, are ruling in contradiction to one another, and in contradiction to Justice Scalia's ruling in Jesinoski, by dismissing cases on the grounds shown in 15 U.S.C. §1640, even though notice of rescission had been timely given?