In Balderas v. Countrywide Bank, the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an Order of the trial court granting a Motion to Dismiss in favor of Countrywide.  Balderas had sued Countrywide for a violation of the Truth in Lending Act, TILA.  Balderas alleged in his complaint that he did not read English, that a Countrywide agent, Cazakov, had cold-called him one day and subsequently came to his house in person and refused to leave until Balderas had signed for a refinance of his mortgage. Cazakov stayed until after midnight and, according to Balderas, did not leave him with copies of any of the paperwork, including the 3-day right of rescission notice mandated by the TILA.  The trial court dismissed the suit because Balderas had attached a copy of the 3-day right of rescission notice to his Complaint, satisfying the trial judge that he must have received a copy of the notice.  The Court of Appeals ruled that the allegations of the Complaint, that the notice had not been left with Balderas was not contradicted by the exhibit to the Complaint, which was only an enclosure with a letter from Countrywide. The Court of Appeals ruled that the fact that Countrywide later mailed a copy of the notice, was not proof it was delivered at the time of the execution of the documents, as was required.  In addition, the Court of Appeals found that because the Complaint alleged that the document was signed by Balderas after midnight, he had an additional day to rescind and the response from Countrywide that he waited too long was not necessarily correct.  This case comes down to the fact that at the outset of a case, a Court should not dismiss a case simply because the trial judge believes the case will be difficult to prove;  at the outset the only question for the judge is whether or not the Complaint states a valid cause of action, not whether the facts that will eventually emerge will support the allegations of the Complaint.  R