Robin H. Gustin v. Suntrust Bank
20-12844
11th Cir.Jul 6, 2021Background
- Gustin, pro se, sued five banks (Capital One, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Truist, JPMorgan Chase) alleging they were vicariously liable for fraud by nonparties (Parascript and NCR) in a prior patent case.
- In the prior patent litigation, certain discovery documents were designated “Highly Confidential” or “For Attorney’s Eyes Only,” which prevented Gustin personally from viewing them though her attorney did.
- Capital Security (Gustin’s company) lost the patent case and its patents were invalidated.
- Gustin previously sued NCR and Parascript for fraud based on the same discovery-designation theory; that suit (Gustin I) was dismissed with prejudice, holding the attorney’s knowledge was imputed to the client.
- In the present suit the banks moved to dismiss alleging collateral estoppel and failure to plead damages; the district court dismissed with prejudice, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed based on failure to sufficiently allege damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gustin’s fraud claim is barred by collateral estoppel | Gustin re-alleges the same fraudulent scheme but against different defendants (the Banks) | Banks: Gustin I resolved the same primary issue; collateral estoppel applies | Court affirmed dismissal but based decision on failure to plead damages (collateral estoppel was an alternative ground) |
| Whether Gustin sufficiently alleged damages for common-law fraud under Florida law | Gustin: being denied direct access to the documents deprived her of information that caused damage | Banks: attorney’s knowledge of the documents is imputed to Gustin, so she suffered no compensable damage | Held: Gustin failed to plead damages; attorney knowledge is imputed, so no damage alleged — dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Gustin v. Nicoll, [citation="824 F. App'x 875"] (11th Cir. 2020) (prior dismissal holding attorney knowledge imputed to client)
- Hill v. White, 321 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2003) (Rule 12(b)(6) review de novo)
- Powell v. Lennon, 914 F.2d 1459 (11th Cir. 1990) (pro se complaints are construed liberally)
- Gandy v. Trans World Computer Tech. Group, 787 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (elements of common-law fraud)
- Brooks Tropicals, Inc. v. Acosta, 959 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (agent knowledge imputable to principal)