Justia U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit for breach of contract, negligence, wrongful foreclosure, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), Tex. Bus. & Com. Code 17.50(a)(1)). On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's dismissal of her claims, as well as her motion to join a non-diverse defendant. The court concluded that the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's breach-of-contract claim was proper because she failed to allege any facts showing her own performance and did not refute the facts in documents referred to in her complaint, central to her claims, and attached to the motion to dismiss; the dismissal of the negligence claim was proper where any damages stemming from an alleged violation of those solely contractual duties are not redressable in tort; the wrongful-foreclosure claim was properly dismissed where plaintiff never alleged that Wells Fargo disposed of the house at a “grossly inadequate selling price,” nor does she allege that Wells Fargo fraudulently chilled the bidding at the foreclosure sale; and, where plaintiff bases her DTPA claims on Wells Fargo’s failure to make automatic withdrawals to pay the loan, such services cannot form the basis of a DTPA claim because they are incidental to the loan and would serve no purpose apart from facilitating the mortgage loan. Finally, in regard to the motion to join a non-diverse defendant, the district court applied the correct legal standard and its finding of fact were not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Villarreal v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Wells Fargo in a suit stemming from plaintiffs' default on a home mortgage. Plaintiff asserted claims for common-law fraud and fraudulent inducement. The court concluded that plaintiffs' claimed damages are either categorically not damages, too speculative, or unsubstantiated assertions. Because plaintiffs failed to give proof to support an element of their fraud claims, the district court committed no error in granting summary judgment. The district court did not commit error, let alone plain error, in denying a continuance where plaintiffs filed only a one-line request for a continuance without any supporting evidence regarding the need for additional discovery or why existing discovery had been incomplete. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Lawrence v. FHLMC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against BOA and Wells Fargo alleging, among other claims, that BOA had violated Section 51.002(d) of the Texas Property Code and the Texas Debt Collection Act (TDCA), Tex. Fin. Code Ann. 392.301(a)(8), 392.303(a)(2), and 392.304(a)(8). On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment for BOA. The court concluded that, even if section 51.002(d) authorizes a private cause of action, plaintiff fails to state a claim because she did not allege that BOA attempted to send her a timely notice of sale or to initiate foreclosure. Further, the court concluded that, irrespective of any statutory notice requirements, BOA did not violate section 392.301(a)(8) of the TDCA by threatening to foreclose; plaintiff failed to allege a violation of section 392.303(a)(2); and plaintiff failed to establish any of the elements required by section 392.304(a)(8). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Rucker v. Bank of America" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Landmark, seeking statutory damages for alleged violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA), 15 U.S.C.1693, et seq., after he was charged $2.95 for an ATM withdrawal but was not given notice or informed of the fee. The district court granted Landmark's second motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. At issue was whether Landmark’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 offer, assuming it were complete, mooted plaintiff’s individual claim and the class action claims. Finding the reasoning of the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits persuasive, the court held that an unaccepted offer of judgment to a named plaintiff in a class action “is a legal nullity, with no operative effect.” Nothing in Rule 68 alters that basic principle. Accordingly, given that plaintiff's individual claim was not mooted by the unaccepted offer in this case, neither were the class claims. The court reversed and remanded. View "Hooks v. Landmark Indus." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against TMCC and Troy Campise, the Sales Manager of Lakeside Toyota, an automobile dealership, alleging that TMCC and Campise defrauded him by leading him to believe that a lease for a Toyota Corolla automobile would be tax exempt because the co-lessee, DELF, Inc., was a non-profit organization for which plaintiff is the registered agent and chief executive officer. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the lease at issue was made to an organization as well as a natural person and therefore cannot be a consumer lease under the Consumer Leasing Act (CLA), 15 U.S.C. 1667-1667f. Because the CLA does not apply to a lease that is made to an organization, the court need not determine whether the complaint plausibly alleged that the lease was for personal use, rather than for agricultural, business, or commercial purposes. View "Dixon v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against TMCC and Troy Campise, the Sales Manager of Lakeside Toyota, an automobile dealership, alleging that TMCC and Campise defrauded him by leading him to believe that a lease for a Toyota Corolla automobile would be tax exempt because the co-lessee, DELF, Inc., was a non-profit organization for which plaintiff is the registered agent and chief executive officer. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the lease at issue was made to an organization as well as a natural person and therefore cannot be a consumer lease under the Consumer Leasing Act (CLA), 15 U.S.C. 1667-1667f. Because the CLA does not apply to a lease that is made to an organization, the court need not determine whether the complaint plausibly alleged that the lease was for personal use, rather than for agricultural, business, or commercial purposes. View "Dixon v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp." on Justia Law

Wells Fargo appealed a jury verdict finding that it committed violations of the Texas Debt Collection Act (TCDA), Tex. Fin. Code 392.001-392.404, and awarding damages and attorney's fees. The court concluded that plaintiffs had standing to bring their TCDA claims; the economic loss rule does not bar plaintiffs' TDCA claims; the evidence supports a finding that Wells Fargo violated section 392.304(a)(12); the evidence does not support the jury's award to plaintiffs for expenses; the evidence does not support a finding that Wells Fargo violated section 392.301(a)(3) so there is no basis upon which to award plaintiffs statutory damages; and the court affirmed in all other respects. View "McCaig v. Wells Fargo Bank" on Justia Law

A jury found that PlastiPure and CertiChem violated the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), by making false statements of facts about Eastman's plastic resin product called Tritan. The district court entered an injunction against both companies and the companies appealed, challenging the jury verdict and the injunction. The court held that the Act prohibits false commercial speech even when that speech makes scientific claims. The court rejected the companies' contention that the district court should not have entered its injunction because the companies' statements about Tritan containing estrogenic activity (EA) from BPA are not actionable statements under the Act. The court concluded that application of the Act to the companies’ promotional statements will not stifle academic freedom or intrude on First Amendment values; the injunction only applies to statements made “in connection with any advertising, promotion, offering for sale, or sale of goods or services;" the companies may continue to pursue their research and publish their results; and the companies may not push their product by making the claims the jury found to be false and misleading. The court rejected the companies' argument that the jury's verdict must be reversed where a reasonable jury could have concluded that the companies' statements were false and misleading. The court rejected the companies' claims of error in the jury instructions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Eastman Chemical Co. v. PlastiPure, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action alleging that the Bank violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA), 15 U.S.C. 1963 et seq., by failing to post an external notice of fees on its ATMs. While the suit was pending but before class certification, Congress amended the EFTA to eliminate the external notice requirement. The district court dismissed plaintiff's claim and denied class certification. The court concluded that plaintiff has standing to bring her claim where Congress's determination that consumers were entitled to the fee information they need to decline a transaction before investing the time needed to initiate it protects a substantive, if small, right, and its deprivation is an injury-in-fact that allows plaintiff to pursue her claim; the Bank's attempt to "pick off" plaintiff's claim before the court could decide the issue of class certification fits squarely within the "relation back" doctrine, which saves her claim from mootness at this stage; the EFTA amendment eliminating the "two notice" provision does not apply retroactively to plaintiff's claim; and the EFTA amendment poses no more a barrier for putative class members than it does for plaintiff, for claims alleging violations before the amendment was enacted. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's denial of class certification and remanded for further considerations. View "Mabary v. Home Town Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit seeking statutory damages under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1640(a)(2)(A), claiming that Buy Direct (dba Direct Buy) failed to provide the dates that payments would be due on an installment contract for membership in Direct Buy's wholesale membership club. The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Direct Buy, concluding that Direct Buy failed to make the required disclosures to plaintiffs, who therefore were entitled to damages. View "Lea, et al. v. Buy Direct, L.L.C." on Justia Law