Figueroa v. Bank of America, N.A., 8:17-cv-02637

Background

Plaintiffs David Figueroa and Lazara Sosa were originally part of a multi‑plaintiff HAMP suit against Bank of America (BOA); their claims were later severed and refiled as a separate action.
Plaintiffs allege BOA made fraudulent statements/omissions in administering a HAMP mortgage modification, advancing four specific theories: (1) misrepresenting HAMP eligibility (claiming they had to be in default), (2) falsely saying submitted financial documents were incomplete, (3) orally telling them they were approved for a HAMP modification and to begin trial payments, and (4) concealing how inspection fees would be applied.
BOA moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting the claims are time‑barred, barred by Florida’s banking statute of frauds, and fail to plead fraud with the particularity required by Rule 9(b).
The court treated the Amended Complaint as plaintiffs’ fourth pleading attempt and analyzed statute of limitations, the banking statute of frauds, and Rule 9(b) in turn.
The court refused to consider a separate Treasury “Supplemental Directive” as central to plaintiffs’ claims for statute‑of‑limitations purposes and held BOA had not met its burden to show discovery occurred earlier for most claims.
Result: the court dismissed three of four claims with prejudice (Supporting Documents, HAMP Approval, and Inspection Fee) and allowed only the HAMP Eligibility claim to proceed; no further amendment allowed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether fraud claims are barred by Florida's 4‑year statute of limitations	Figueroa/Sosa contend they filed timely; they did not discover fraud earlier	BOA argues public HAMP guidance (Supplemental Directive) and timing of statements put claims outside limitations	Court: statute‑of‑limitations defense not established for HAMP Eligibility, HAMP Approval, or Supporting Documents; Inspection Fee claim may be time‑barred but also fails Rule 9(b)
Whether oral HAMP approval claim is barred by Florida's banking statute of frauds	Plaintiffs assert BOA’s oral approval induced reliance and trial payments	BOA contends oral promise to modify is a credit agreement and must be in writing under Fla. Stat. § 687.0304	Court: HAMP Approval claim is a barred oral credit promise and is dismissed with prejudice
Whether fraud allegations meet Rule 9(b) particularity requirements	Plaintiffs allege specific misrepresentations, dates, and a named BOA representative for some claims	BOA argues allegations are conclusory and lack particulars (who, when, how, what was false)	Court: HAMP Eligibility claim adequately pleaded under Rule 9(b); Supporting Documents and Inspection Fee claims fail particularity and are dismissed with prejudice
Whether plaintiffs may amend again	Plaintiffs had multiple prior amendments	BOA requested dismissal with prejudice as specified	Court: Leave to amend denied as futile; dismissal of the three claims is with prejudice; BOA must answer the surviving HAMP Eligibility claim within 14 days

Key Cases Cited

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must do more than recite legal conclusions)
Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (1986) (court need not accept legal conclusions as facts)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (‘‘threadbare recitals’’ insufficient; pleading standard clarified)
Jackson v. BellSouth Telecomms., 372 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2004) (on taking allegations as true on Rule 12(b)(6) motions)
Stephens v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 901 F.2d 1571 (11th Cir. 1990) (reasonable inferences favor plaintiff on motion to dismiss)
SFM Holdings, Ltd. v. Banc of Am. Sec., LLC, 600 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2010) (court may consider extrinsic document if central and undisputed)
Horsley v. Feldt, 304 F.3d 1125 (11th Cir. 2002) (standards for considering documents attached to a motion to dismiss)
La Grasta v. First Union Sec., Inc., 358 F.3d 840 (11th Cir. 2004) (defendant bears burden on statute‑of‑limitations affirmative defense)
United States ex rel. Clausen v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 290 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2002) (Rule 9(b) requires more than conclusory allegations)
Bloch v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., 755 F.3d 886 (11th Cir. 2014) (Florida banking statute of frauds bars oral promises to make financial accommodations)