Antionette Smedley v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas
676 F. App'x 860
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Antionette Smedley, proceeding pro se, appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Deutsche Bank Trust Company America and McCurdy & Candler, LLC.
- Defendants produced a notice of default and an affidavit attesting to its validity; district court treated defendants’ statement of material facts as admitted after Smedley failed to properly controvert them.
- Smedley sought Rule 56(d) relief (postponement/additional discovery) via affidavits claiming she lacked facts to oppose summary judgment and alleging the notice was manufactured; she also pursued TILA and RESPA claims tied to an alleged unresponded QWR.
- The district court denied Smedley’s Rule 56(d) request and granted summary judgment; Smedley did not raise the conversion-to-summary-judgment argument below.
- On appeal, Smedley argued the district court abused its discretion by denying Rule 56(d) relief and should have converted an earlier motion to dismiss into a summary-judgment motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of Rule 56(d) relief was an abuse of discretion | Smedley argued she needed discovery to rebut defendants’ evidence and could not present essential facts | Defendants argued they submitted valid notice and affidavit and Smedley’s affidavits were vague/contradictory | No abuse: district court properly denied Rule 56(d) because Smedley’s assertions were vague, contradicted by admissions, and she failed to show how discovery would help |
| Whether summary judgment before discovery was improper | Smedley contended summary judgment should await discovery | Defendants argued summary judgment is permissible when party had adequate opportunity or failed to show need for discovery | Summary judgment appropriate; court may grant before discovery when Rule 56(d) relief is not shown |
| Sufficiency of Smedley’s TILA/RESPA allegations tied to QWR | Smedley alleged Deutsche failed to respond to a QWR, implying liability | Defendants noted lack of facts showing Deutsche was loan servicer or that discovery would produce evidence to support claims | Claims fail: Smedley did not allege facts or explain how discovery would uncover necessary evidence |
| Whether district court improperly converted a Rule 12(b)(6) motion into summary judgment | Smedley argued improper conversion | Defendants argued the challenged motion before the court was a summary judgment motion, not a dismissed Rule 12(b)(6) converted to summary judgment | Not preserved for appeal and meritless: conversion did not occur because the ruling was on a summary judgment motion; issue not raised below |
Key Cases Cited
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Allis Chalmers Corp., 893 F.2d 1313 (11th Cir. 1990) (standard for Rule 56(d) relief and requirement to show discovery will enable opposition)
- Reflectone, Inc. v. Farrand Optical Co., 862 F.2d 841 (11th Cir. 1989) (summary judgment may be granted before discovery when Rule 56(d) relief is properly denied)
- Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2004) (appellate courts generally do not consider issues raised first on appeal)
- Iraola & CIA, S.A. v. Kimberly–Clark Corp., 325 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2003) (appellant must show discovery rulings caused substantial harm to overturn)
- Trustmark Ins. Co. v. ESLU, Inc., 299 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2002) (conversion occurs when court considers matters outside pleadings on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion)