Joseph Roberts v. FNB South of Alma, Georgia
17-11269
| 11th Cir. | Nov 14, 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Joseph Roberts sued FNB South seeking information and alleging the Bank issued bogus loans and engaged in illegal banking practices.
- District court construed the complaint liberally and identified a potential claim under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), but Roberts did not allege discrimination on any protected basis.
- Bank moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); the district court stayed discovery pending resolution and dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
- On appeal Roberts asserted a Truth in Lending Act (TILA) claim and complained about the discovery stay and the absence of a dismissal hearing.
- The appellate court reviewed de novo, treated pro se filings liberally but not as a substitute for adequate pleading, and considered unbriefed issues abandoned.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint stated an ECOA claim | Roberts alleged illegal banking practices; implied discrimination claim | No factual allegation of discrimination on protected grounds | Dismissed — no ECOA claim pleaded |
| Whether TILA applies to these loans | Roberts: Bank failed to make adequate TILA disclosures | Bank: Loans were commercial/business transactions, exempt from TILA | Dismissed — TILA inapplicable because loans were for business/commercial purposes |
| Whether staying discovery and ruling without hearing was improper | Roberts challenged stay and lack of oral hearing | Bank defended stay pending dispositive motion; no Rule 12 hearing required | Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion in staying discovery or ruling without hearing |
| Whether plaintiff should have been allowed to amend | Roberts did not obtain leave to amend after dismissal | Bank argued amendment would be futile given statutory exemption | Affirmed — leave to amend would be futile because TILA exemption applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Dental Ass’n v. Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2010) (standard for reviewing Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals)
- Campbell v. Air Jamaica, 760 F.3d 1165 (11th Cir. 2014) (pro se filings construed liberally but courts will not replead for litigants)
- Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870 (11th Cir. 2008) (issues not briefed on appeal are abandoned)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 1997) (district courts have broad case-management discretion; resolve Rule 12 motions before discovery)
- Greene v. WCI Holdings Corp., 136 F.3d 313 (2d Cir. 1998) (Rule 12 does not require oral hearing before ruling on motion to dismiss)
- Bank v. Pitt, 928 F.2d 1108 (11th Cir. 1991) (leave to amend not required where amendment would be futile)
- Sherill v. Verde Capital Corp., 719 F.2d 364 (11th Cir. 1983) (TILA exemption turns on purpose of credit transaction, not collateral)
- Poe v. Nat’l Bank of DeKalb Cty., 597 F.2d 895 (5th Cir. 1979) (TILA does not apply where loan financed a corporation/business despite personal guarantees)
- Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (prior Fifth Circuit decisions binding precedent for Eleventh Circuit)