Latour v. Lending Club, 2:19-cv-00042

Background:

Latour received a preapproval solicitation from LendingClub showing illustrations (e.g., $10,000/60 months at 10.17% APR) but with footnotes stating APRs range and actual APRs are "determined based on your credit at time of application."
Latour used LendingClub’s MyInstantOffer.com site, selected loan amount and term, and alleges he selected the advertised 10.17% APR; LendingClub offered a loan at an APR >17%.
Latour refused the offer and requested an ECOA adverse-action notice; LendingClub declined and did not send such a notice within 90 days.
LendingClub moved to dismiss, attaching exemplar pages from MyInstantOffer.com showing applicants can choose amount and term but cannot request a specific APR; Latour supplied two additional pages but the parties’ materials together show no APR-selection field.
The magistrate judge concluded, based on the solicitation and website documents incorporated into the complaint, that Latour did not request credit on particular APR terms and therefore LendingClub’s higher-APR offer was not an "adverse action" under the ECOA; recommended dismissal with prejudice.

Issues:

Issue	Latour's Argument	LendingClub's Argument	Held
Whether offering a loan at a higher APR than illustrated in a solicitation is an "adverse action" under the ECOA	Any action adverse to a consumer’s interests qualifies; the mailed illustration and Latour’s selection meant he applied for 10.17% APR	"Adverse action" requires refusal of credit in substantially the amount or on substantially the terms requested in an application; Latour never requested a specific APR	Court: Not an adverse action — Latour could not request a specific APR, so offer on different APR is not refusal of terms requested
Whether Latour’s online application requested a specific APR or incorporated the solicitation’s sample APR	The pre-screened code and selecting $10,000/60 months meant he applied for the advertised 10.17% APR	The application pages show no field to request or select an APR; solicitation footnote disclaimed fixed APR	Court: Application did not allow requesting a specific APR; solicitation did not promise a guaranteed APR
Whether the court may consider LendingClub’s and Latour’s website printouts on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion	Latour argued LendingClub omitted pages	LendingClub argued the documents are central and authentic; Latour appended pages that completed the application record	Court: Considered both parties’ attachments as central and not disputed; used them to resolve plausibility
Whether dismissal should be with prejudice	Latour had been given leave/amendment opportunity and indicated he might dismiss; failed to appear at hearing	LendingClub sought dismissal on the merits	Court: Recommended dismissal with prejudice (Latour had already amended once and failed to prosecute/appear)

Key Cases Cited

Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991) (pro se pleadings are construed liberally but must meet pleading standards)
Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir. 2005) (pro se litigants must follow procedural rules)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state plausible claim to survive dismissal)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions need factual support for plausibility)
GFF Corp. v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 130 F.3d 1381 (10th Cir. 1997) (documents central to the claim that contradict allegations need not be accepted as true)
Smith v. United States, 561 F.3d 1090 (10th Cir. 2009) (court may consider exhibits and documents incorporated by reference on a motion to dismiss)
Resolution Tr. Corp. v. Westgate Partners, Ltd., 937 F.2d 526 (10th Cir. 1991) (courts should follow a statute's plain language when clear)