Anthony-Cortez Webb v. Guaranteed Rate Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio adopted a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation and dismissed Anthony-Cortez Webb's complaint against Guaranteed Rate Inc. with prejudice. The court held that Webb failed to state plausible claims for fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, Truth in Lending Act violations, unjust enrichment, and declaratory or injunctive relief, and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

Holdings

1. The complaint failed to state a plausible fraudulent-inducement claim because Webb did not identify a material misrepresentation or plead facts establishing a special duty to disclose information beyond the note and mortgage.
2. The complaint failed to state a plausible breach-of-contract claim based on lack of consideration.
3. The complaint failed to state a plausible Truth in Lending Act claim.
4. The complaint failed to state a plausible unjust-enrichment claim because the note and mortgage governed the parties' relationship.
5. The request for declaratory and injunctive relief was properly treated as part of the prayer for relief rather than as an independent cause of action, and Webb was not entitled to such relief after failing to state a substantive claim.
6. A district court may dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint sua sponte when it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a plausible fraudulent-inducement claim based on alleged misrepresentations and nondisclosure.
2. Whether the complaint stated a plausible breach-of-contract claim based on alleged lack of consideration.
3. Whether the complaint stated a plausible Truth in Lending Act claim.
4. Whether the complaint stated a plausible unjust-enrichment claim where the parties' relationship was governed by a note and mortgage.
5. Whether declaratory and injunctive relief constituted an independent cause of action and was available despite the failure of the substantive claims.
6. Whether dismissal with prejudice was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Disposition

dismissed