Maib v. Federal Deposit Insurance
771 F. Supp. 2d 14
D.D.C.2011Background
- Maib and Ocean Concrete sue FDIC as receiver for Columbian Bank & Trust over a $2.7 million loan to fund Ocean Concrete and Florida property acquisition.
- CB&T advanced an initial $1,389,690 with the balance to be advanced as work on the property progressed and inspections occurred under CB&T procedures.
- Plaintiffs allege CB&T conditioned distributions on their classification of loan proceeds and objected to using funds for a residence.
- Plaintiffs contend CB&T pressured default/foreclosure and imposed a $25,000 broker’s fee for a new loan that allegedly never materialized.
- Plaintiffs assert four Florida-law claims: breach of contract, tortious interference with business relations, disparagement of credit, and fraud; FDIC moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Court grants FDIC’s motion to dismiss, finding the complaint fails to state any viable claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract—which provision breached | Maib claiming loan terms required unconditional advances | FDIC says no contract provision obligates CB&T to disburse on demand for a residence | Dismissed; no plausible breach based on contract language |
| Tortious interference with business relations | CB&T interfered with plaintiffs’ relationships with third parties | Interference with own loan relationship not actionable; no knowledge shown | Dismissed; no plausible claim against CB&T |
| Defamation/credit disparagement claim | Credit disparagement claim should be recognized under law | Florida law does not recognize ‘disparagement of credit’ as such; no specific statements identified | Dismissed; insufficient factual basis of false statements |
| Fraud claim | Fraud alleged but not specified | Rule 9(b) specificity and Florida economic loss rule bar claim | Dismissed; waived opposition to Rule 9(b) and economic loss rule |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standards for plausibility clarified (cited with Twombly))
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must show plausible entitlement to relief)
- Ihebereme v. Capital One, N.A., 730 F. Supp. 2d 40 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (contract interpretation; notice of terms)
- Romika-USA, Inc. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 514 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (tortious interference with business relationships—court disallows where appealing party is participant)
- Sali v. Ruden, 742 So. 2d 381 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999) (injurious falsehood framework; disparagement principles)
- Border Collie Rescue, Inc. v. Ryan, 418 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (M.D. Fla. 2006) (defamation elements; requires specific false statements)
- Allington Towers Condo. North, Inc. v. Allington Towers North, Inc., 415 So. 2d 118 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982) (slender disparagement/ownership-related claims)
- Atkinson v. Fundaro, 400 So. 2d 1324 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981) (injurious falsehood context; property disparagement)
- Magre v. Charles, 729 So. 2d 440 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999) (elements of tortious interference in Florida)
- Networkip, LLC v. Spread Enters., 922 So. 2d 355 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006) (economic interests protection does not prove intent to damage)
- Hinton v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 624 F. Supp. 2d 45 (D.D.C. 2009) (judicial consideration of documents attached to complaint on 12(b)(6))