Lisa Mabary v. Home Town Bank, N.A.
771 F.3d 820
5th Cir.2014Background
- Mabary sued Home Town Bank for EFTA violations alleging failure to post the required two notices before amendment.
- At filing, the statute required external posted and on-screen/print notice; Mabary received screen notice but not posted notice.
- Congress later repealed the external “two notice” provision via H.R. 4367, leaving only the screen notice.
- The district court denied class certification, then Mabary appealed; Home Town sought to moot per Rule 68 offer of judgment.
- The court held the mootness was not proper and remanded to decide class certification under Rule 23.
- The dissent argues Mabary lacked standing and that retroactivity should defeat the claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing based on injury in fact under EFTA | Mabary had a statutory injury to two-notice right | Mabary had no cognizable injury after notice | Standing exists; injury in fact shown (majority) |
| Mooting of individual claim by Rule 68 offer | Offer moots only when class not certified; relation back applies | Offer moots independent of class status | Relation back doctrine saves the claim; remand for class certification |
| Retroactivity of EFTA amendment | Amendment retroactively eliminates Mabary's pre-amendment right | Amendment should apply retroactively to future conduct | Amendment not retroactive to Mabary's pre-amendment claim; applies prospectively |
Key Cases Cited
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prod., 511 U.S. 244 (1994) (presumption against retroactivity; framework for retroactive analysis)
- Hughes v. Kore of Indiana Enterprise, Inc., 731 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2013) (retroactivity considerations in EFTA amendment)
- Charvat v. Mutual First Fed. Credit Union, 725 F.3d 819 (8th Cir. 2013) (two-notice provision applied to pre-amendment claims)
- Sandoz v. Cingular Wireless LLC, 553 F.3d 913 (5th Cir. 2008) (relation back principle in class actions)
- Fener v. Operating Engineers Constr. Indus. & Misc. Pension Fund (Local 66), 579 F.3d 401 (5th Cir. 2009) (retrospective effects and standing considerations)