City of Miami v. CitiGroup Inc. | 11th Cir. - engaged in a decade-long pattern of discriminatory lending in the residential housing market that caused the City economic harm...a claim arising under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.,

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

City of Miami v. CitiGroup Inc. | 11th Cir. – engaged in a decade-long pattern of discriminatory lending in the residential housing market that caused the City economic harm…a claim arising under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.,

City of Miami v. CitiGroup Inc. | 11th Cir. – engaged in a decade-long pattern of discriminatory lending in the residential housing market that caused the City economic harm…a claim arising under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.,

[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-14706 D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-24510-WPD

CITY OF MIAMI, a Florida Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff – Appellant,

versus

CITIGROUP INC., CITIBANK, N.A., CITIMORTGAGE, INC., CITI HOLDINGS,INC., CITICORP TRUST BANK, FSB, Defendants – Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(September 1, 2015)

Before MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and SCHLESINGER,* District Judge.

MARCUS, Circuit Judge:

On December 13, 2011, the City of Miami brought three separate fair housing lawsuits against Citigroup, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo. Each alleged that the bank in question had engaged in a decade-long pattern of discriminatory lending by targeting minorities for predatory loans. The complaints in each case were largely identical, each identifying the same pattern of behavior and supported by empirical data specific to each defendant. Moreover, each complaint contained the same two causes of action: one claim arising under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., as well as an attendant unjust enrichment claim under Florida law.

The three cases were heard by the same judge in the Southern District of Florida, and were resolved in the same way based on the district court’s order in the Bank of America case. In this case, like the others, the district court dismissed the City’s FHA claim with prejudice on three grounds: the City lacked statutory standing under the FHA because its alleged injuries fell outside the statute’s “zone of interests”; the City had not adequately pled that Citigroup’s conduct proximately caused the harm sustained by the City; and, finally, the City had run afoul of the statute of limitations and could not employ the continuing violation doctrine. Each of the three cases was appealed separately.

After thorough review, we are constrained to disagree with the district court’s legal conclusions about the City’s FHA claims. The most detailed account of our reasoning is set out in the companion case City of Miami v. Bank of America Corp., No. 14-14543. The same conclusions of law apply here. As a preliminary matter, we find that the City has constitutional standing to pursue its FHA claims. Furthermore, under controlling Supreme Court precedent, the “zone of interests” for the Fair Housing Act extends as broadly as permitted under Article III of the Constitution, and therefore encompasses the City’s claim. While we agree with the district court’s conclusion that the FHA contains a proximate cause requirement, we find that the City has adequately alleged proximate cause. Finally, the “continuing violation doctrine” would apply to the City’s claims, if they are adequately pled.

Because the district court imposed too stringent a zone of interests test and wrongly applied the proximate cause analysis, it erred in dismissing the City’s federal claims with prejudice and in denying the City’s motion for leave to amend on the grounds of futility. As for the state law claim, we affirm the dismissal because the benefits the City allegedly conferred on the defendants were not sufficiently direct to plead an unjust enrichment claim under Florida law.

Down Load PDF of This Case

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 8540 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author

Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Kenneth Eric Trent, www.ForeclosureDestroyer.com

Archives