GEYER v. AMERICAN ADVISORS GROUP
2:17-cv-07336
D.N.J.Jan 18, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Arlyne Geyer, a New Jersey resident, applied for a reverse mortgage with defendant American Advisors Group (AAG) in April 2016.
- In May 2017 Geyer was negotiating with a lienholder’s attorney to discharge a lien on her property at a discounted amount.
- Geyer alleges AAG employee Suzanne Kern informed the lienholder’s attorney that Geyer had applied for a reverse mortgage, after which the lienholder ceased the prior negotiations.
- Geyer sued in state court asserting tortious interference, unfair trade practices/violation of disclosure laws, and negligence; AAG removed to federal court and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The court considered loan application documents and privacy/authorization forms attached to AAG’s motion as integral and authentic to Geyer’s claims.
- The court granted AAG’s motion to dismiss all three counts: tortious interference, statutory disclosure claim, and negligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tortious interference — did AAG improperly interfere with Geyer’s prospective economic advantage? | Geyer: AAG’s disclosure to the lienholder caused the loss of a favorable settlement and thus interfered with expected economic advantage. | AAG: Complaint fails to plead what contract or expectancy was interfered with, and there is no allegation of malice or intentional wrongdoing. | Dismissed — plaintiff did not plead the required elements, including expectancy and malice. |
| Alleged violation of disclosure laws (including Gramm-Leach-Bliley) — does Geyer have a private right of action? | Geyer: Defendants violated state and federal disclosure laws by revealing nonpublic information (argued in opposition that GLBA applied). | AAG: Plaintiff did not plead specific statutes; GLBA does not create a private cause of action. | Dismissed — no specific statutory claim pled and GLBA provides no private right of action. |
| Negligence — did AAG breach a duty of care/confidentiality by contacting creditors? | Geyer: AAG breached duties of care/confidentiality by disclosing her loan application to the lienholder, causing damages. | AAG: Geyer signed loan application, privacy disclosure, and general authorization permitting verification and contacting creditors to process the loan. | Dismissed — documents authorized contacts; no breach of duty shown. |
| Consideration of extraneous documents on a 12(b)(6) motion — may the court consider AAG’s loan documents? | Geyer: Implicitly contested; did not dispute authenticity. | AAG: Documents are integral to and relied upon in the complaint; thus properly considered. | Held — court may consider the undisputed, integral loan documents without converting to summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state plausible claim to relief)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (courts need not accept bare legal conclusions)
- Printing Mart–Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 563 A.2d 31 (N.J. 1989) (elements of tortious interference and definition of malice)
- Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, 716 F.3d 764 (3d Cir. 2013) (documents integral to complaint may be considered on motion to dismiss)
- Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192 (3d Cir. 1993) (undisputedly authentic documents attached to motion may be considered)
- Jersey Cent. Power & Light Co. v. Melcar Util. Co., 59 A.3d 561 (N.J. 2013) (elements required for negligence claim)