Dixon v. Ally Bank, 853 F. App’x 977

Pro se plaintiff Landry Dixon sued Ally Bank and several employees alleging predatory lending, bank lending fraud, and violations of various federal and state consumer-protection laws.
Dixon alleged an $8,000 overcharge in a loan contract and claimed the written terms conflicted with earlier verbal representations.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); the district court dismissed for failure to state a claim.
The district court held Dixon’s oral-vs-written dispute was barred by the Louisiana Credit Agreement Statute, found no private right of action under the Consumer Financial Protection Act/Dodd‑Frank predatory-lending provisions, and determined LUTPA did not apply to a federally insured bank.
The court also concluded Dixon failed to allege personal duties by individual defendants necessary for officer liability under Louisiana law.
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo, rejected arguments first raised only in Dixon’s opposition brief, found Dixon abandoned issues he did not address on appeal, and affirmed the dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Whether claims raised only in opposition can be considered	Dixon asserted additional statutory claims (e.g., TILA, CFPB) in his opposition brief	Claims not pleaded in the complaint are not properly before the court	Not considered; claims raised first in opposition are not before the court; amendment not granted
2. Whether the dispute is barred by Louisiana Credit Agreement Statute	Dixon contends oral promises contradicted written contract and support his claims	Defendants argue the written agreement controls under Louisiana law	Court: Oral-vs-written dispute barred by the statute; dismissal appropriate
3. Whether a private right of action exists under CFPB/Dodd‑Frank predatory-lending provisions	Dixon seeks relief under CFPB and Dodd‑Frank predatory-lending provisions	Defendants argue no private right of action exists under those provisions	Court: Dixon failed to allege a private right of action; claims dismissed
4. Applicability of LUTPA and officer liability	Dixon alleges unfair trade practices and seeks to hold individual officers liable	Defendants: Ally is federally insured (LUTPA inapplicable); no personal duty alleged to impose officer liability	Court: LUTPA inapplicable to federally insured bank; no facts showing personal duty by officers—no personal liability

In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 2007) (de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading sufficiency)
Cutrera v. Bd. of Sup'rs of Louisiana State Univ., 429 F.3d 108 (5th Cir. 2005) (claims not raised in complaint are not properly before the court)
United States ex rel. Willard v. Humana Health Plan of Tex. Inc., 336 F.3d 375 (5th Cir. 2003) (amendment to complaint must be expressly requested)
Wright v. Allstate Ins. Co., 415 F.3d 384 (5th Cir. 2005) (futility can support denial of leave to amend)
Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1993) (issues not briefed on appeal are abandoned)
Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744 (5th Cir. 1987) (pro se appellant must identify errors or the appeal is treated as not having been taken)