Greg Shaw v. One West Bank, FSB
683 F. App'x 850
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2007 Shaw refinanced his Georgia home with IndyMac; FDIC took over in 2008 and loan transferred to OneWest.
- FDIC and OneWest executed a Loan Sale Agreement (LSA) that specified litigation venues limited to the Southern District of New York or the District of Columbia and stated the LSA benefited only FDIC and OneWest.
- Shaw defaulted; OneWest initiated foreclosure and retained law firm McCurdy & Candler, LLC.
- Shaw sued OneWest and McCurdy in D.C., alleging FDCPA violations, breaches of contract, and wrongful foreclosure; the D.C. court transferred the case to the Northern District of Georgia (NDGA).
- In NDGA, Shaw’s motion for leave to amend was denied and the district court dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim; Shaw appealed.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding NDGA venue and jurisdiction proper (as to Shaw) and that Shaw’s proposed amendments were futile and original claims deficient as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Venue / jurisdiction over LSA-related claims | LSA limits jurisdiction to SDNY or DC, so NDGA is improper | NDGA is proper because property is located there; LSA jurisdiction clause binds only contracting parties, not Shaw | NDGA proper; LSA clause doesn't bind nonparty Shaw; NDGA has supplemental jurisdiction over LSA-related claims |
| Denial of leave to amend | District court should have allowed amendment at least once | Proposed amendments were futile and largely duplicated prior allegations | Denial affirmed: amendment would be futile; no abuse of discretion |
| Breach of contract | Shaw alleged breach(s) of loan-related agreements | Defendants: Shaw lacks standing as to agreements he wasn't party to/third-party beneficiary; alleged no damages | Dismissed: Shaw lacked enforceable rights as to some agreements and failed to plead damages for those he could challenge |
| Wrongful foreclosure & FDCPA claims | Foreclosure was wrongful; defendants are debt collectors violating FDCPA | Defendants not shown to be "debt collectors" under FDCPA; pleaded facts are conclusory and fail to show injury or statutory violations | Dismissed: no plausible wrongful foreclosure injury; FDCPA claims inadequately pleaded and defendants not shown to be debt collectors |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. FAA, 432 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 2005) (standard for reviewing subject matter jurisdiction de novo)
- SFM Holdings, Ltd. v. Banc of Am. Sec., LLC, 600 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2010) (standard for abuse of discretion on denial of leave to amend; futility reviewed de novo)
- Corsello v. Lincare, Inc., 428 F.3d 1008 (11th Cir. 2005) (ordinarily at least one opportunity to amend before dismissal; futility exception)
- Catron v. City of St. Petersburg, 658 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (conclusory allegations insufficient under Rule 8)
- Reese v. Ellis, Painter, Ratterree & Adams LLP, 678 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2012) (elements for an FDCPA claim)
- Inland Atl. Old Nat’l Phase I, LLC v. 6425 Old Nat’l, LLC, 766 S.E.2d 86 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014) (elements of breach of contract under Georgia law)
- All Fleet Refinishing, Inc. v. W. Ga. Nat. Bank, 634 S.E.2d 802 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006) (elements of wrongful foreclosure under Georgia law)