972 F. Supp. 2d 947
N.D. Tex.2013Background
- Lowe, proceeding pro se, sues ViewPoint Bank over closure of her personal and business checking accounts.
- Plaintiff asserts federal claims under Fifth Amendment due process and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title II of the CRA, RFPA, and GLBA, plus several state-law claims.
- Defendant moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and Plaintiff moves for summary judgment.
- Magistrate Judge Ramirez recommends denying Defendant’s 12(b)(1) motion and denying both parties’ summary-judgment motions.
- Court analyzes federal-question jurisdiction, including whether statutory provisions create private rights of action, and reviews the merits of § 1983, Title II, RFPA, and GLBA claims.
- Court also addresses Texas UCC-based and other state-law claims (breach of good faith, ordinary care, negligence, defamation, contract) and defers to summary-judgment standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do federal-question allegations establish subject-matter jurisdiction? | Plaintiff asserts federal questions under §1983, Title II, RFPA, and GLBA.JB | Defendant contends no private right of action under several statutes; federal-question jurisdiction lacking | Federal-question jurisdiction exists; 12(b)(1) denied |
| Is Plaintiff entitled to summary judgment on §1983 due process claim? | Plaintiff alleges deprivation of due process under color of law | Bank did not act under color of state law; claim fails as a matter of law | Material issues remain; no entitlement to summary judgment |
| Does Title II authorize relief against a bank for alleged racial discrimination? | Plaintiff alleges race-based denial of banking access under Title II | Bank is not a 'public accommodation' under Title II; claims fail | Bank not a public accommodation; Title II claim dismissed |
| Do RFPA and GLBA claims provide a private right of action and support relief? | RFPA and GLBA protect privacy; plaintiff seeks relief | GLBA provides no private right of action; RFPA requires proof of disclosure | RFPA may support a private action; GLBA provides no private remedy; summary judgment denied on RFPA, denied on GLBA |
| Are the Texas UCC and other state-law claims defensible on summary judgment? | Plaintiff seeks summary judgment on good-faith, ordinary-care, negligence, defamation, and contract claims | Genuine issues exist, especially notice and contractual duties | Summary-judgment denied on all state-law claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2006) (constrains consideration of jurisdictional issues at any stage)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1994) (restrains implied jurisdiction from resolving merits)
- Grable & Sons Metal Prods. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (U.S. 2005) (federal-question jurisdiction when federal issue is central)
- Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804 (U.S. 1986) (private-right-of-action requirement for federal-question jurisdiction)
- Paterson v. Weinberger, 644 F.2d 521 (5th Cir. 1981) (facial vs. factual attacks on jurisdiction; standard for pleading)