Gicu Rautu v. U.S. Bank, 557 F. App'x 411

Rautu purchased a home in Birmingham, Michigan, January 2008, financing with a mortgage from U.S. Bank via Indigo Financial Group.
He claims he was promised a fixed-rate loan but signed documents for an adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM).
The ARM set 7.8% for five years, then would float between 7.8% and 13.8%, contrary to his belief of a fixed rate for 30 years.
Rautu began missing payments in 2010–2011 and entered a HAMP trial modification in June 2011, which after completion set a fixed 4.8% rate for the loan term.
After one September 2011 payment, he stopped paying and filed suit in Oakland County, Michigan, October 27, 2011; U.S. Bank removed the case to the Eastern District of Michigan February 21, 2012.
Plaintiff later refiled May 31, 2012 in Oakland County Circuit Court raising six counts; U.S. Bank removed again July 6, 2012; the district court granted 12(b)(6) dismissal in March 2013, leading to this appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether fraud was pled with the required particularity.	Rautu asserts specific misrepresentations and reliance.	U.S. Bank contends the complaint lacks time, place, and content of misrepresentations.	Count 1 dismissed for failure to plead fraud with particularity.
Whether rescission/reformation and quiet-title claims are viable under Michigan law or as equitable remedies.	Rautu relies on Michigan law to treat these as substantive claims.	These are either non-actionable as claims or barred by unclean hands; equitable relief not proper.	Counts 2 and 3 affirmatively fail as pleaded; unclean-hands rationale supported.
Whether TILA claim is timely or tollable.	Discovery and equitable tolling should save the claim.	Statute of limitations ran from January 2008; no timely discovery allegations or tolling shown.	Count 4 barred by statute of limitations; arguments for discovery or tolling forfeited.
Whether CROA claim survives, given the entity and misrepresentation aspects.	CROA applies to the alleged deceptive practices.	CROA does not regulate entities like U.S. Bank and the alleged statements; no third-party misstatement.	Count 5 (CROA) affirmed as properly dismissed on multiple independent grounds.

Bender v. Southland Corp., 749 F.2d 1205 (6th Cir. 1984) (necessity of specificity in fraud pleadings under Rule 9(b))
Frank v. Dana Corp., 547 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 2008) (how to plead fraud: time, place, and contents of misrepresentation)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (S. Ct. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleading a claim)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (S. Ct. 2007) (twombly-ic plausibility standard for complaint)
Weiner v. Klais & Co., 108 F.3d 86 (6th Cir. 1997) (judicial notice of documents central to complaint)
Dealer Computer Servs., Inc. v. Dub Herring Ford, 623 F.3d 348 (6th Cir. 2010) (forfeiture of arguments not addressed below)
Yaldu v. Bank of America Corp., 700 F. Supp. 2d 832 (E.D. Mich. 2010) (rescission/remediation analysis; equitable considerations)