Robert Crenshaw v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC
688 F. App'x 713
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Crenshaw sued Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC alleging it failed to adequately respond to a RESPA request for information under 12 C.F.R. § 1024.36(a).
- Specialized Loan removed the suit to federal court and moved to dismiss for improper venue in the Southern District of Florida.
- The property at issue is located in Texas; venue under RESPA is proper either where the property is located or where the violation occurred (12 U.S.C. § 2614).
- Crenshaw argued some portion of the violation occurred in Florida because he suffered damages there and his attorneys sent requests from Florida.
- The district court dismissed for improper venue; Crenshaw appealed, contending venue was proper in Florida.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Southern District of Florida is proper venue under RESPA | Crenshaw: venue proper because he suffered damages in Florida and attorneys sent requests from Florida | Specialized Loan: violation occurred where defendant formulated/sent its response, not where plaintiff felt damages | Held: Venue improper; violation occurred where defendant responded (not in Florida) |
| Whether plaintiff's damages location determines where violation occurred for venue | Crenshaw: damages are essential to RESPA claim so venue can be where damages occurred | Specialized Loan: location of damages is irrelevant to where the statutory violation occurred | Held: Location of damages irrelevant to venue; statute looks to where violation occurred and where property is located |
| Whether sending requests from plaintiff's counsel in Florida makes Florida the place of violation | Crenshaw: counsel sent requests from Florida, implying acts occurred there | Specialized Loan: violation is defendant's response; plaintiff does not allege defendant acted from Florida | Held: Plaintiff's counsel sending documents from Florida insufficient; defendant's response location controls |
| Whether dismissal without leave to amend was improper | Crenshaw: should have been allowed to amend complaint | Specialized Loan: plaintiff offered no specifics about what amended facts would show | Held: Denial proper because plaintiff did not identify additional facts to cure defect |
Key Cases Cited
- Algodonera De Las Cabezas, S.A. v. Am. Suisse Capital, Inc., 432 F.3d 1343 (11th Cir. 2005) (standard of review for venue dismissal)
- United States v. Aldrich, 566 F.3d 976 (11th Cir. 2009) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Renfroe v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 822 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2016) (damages are an essential element of a private RESPA claim)
- Hardy v. Regions Mortg., Inc., 449 F.3d 1357 (11th Cir. 2006) (distinguishing occurrence of statutory violation from accrual of cause of action)
- Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2014) (argument abandonment principles for perfunctory appellate arguments)