Court rules guarantors lack standing in landmark credit discrimination case
Four individuals - Marquise Miller, Dekoven Riggins, Richard Osei, and Chad Tyler - have been involved in a legal battle against First United Bank and Trust Co., alleging credit discrimination. The case has seen several developments, including dismissals and appeals, with the most recent decision coming from the Tenth Circuit.
The Individuals initially filed a pro se complaint against the bank, citing violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act, and 42 U.S.C. Ā§ 1981. The district court dismissed their claims without prejudice due to their failure to obtain an attorney by the court's deadline. However, the Individuals later moved to add CDMR, LLC as a necessary party-plaintiff and filed a First Amended Complaint, which was granted.
First United then filed a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the Individuals' Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act claims, as well as their Ā§1981 claim. The district court granted this motion, leading the Individuals to appeal. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit reviewed the dismissal of their Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Ā§ 1981 claim de novo.
In their appeal, the Individuals argued that they had statutory standing to bring their Equal Credit Opportunity Act claim as guarantors of the loan to CDMR. However, the Tenth Circuit rejected this argument, affirming a previous decision that guarantors lack standing to assert an Equal Credit Opportunity Act claim. The court held that the Individuals failed to show harm not derivative of any harm CDMR may have sustained, dismissing their Ā§ 1981 claim. The district court had previously granted the bank's motion to dismiss the Individuals' Fair Housing Act claim but provided them with leave to amend their complaint.
The Tenth Circuit's recent decision in Miller v. First United Bank & Trust Co. has clarified the standing of guarantors under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The Individuals' case continues, with the district court granting their motion to add CDMR, LLC as a necessary party-plaintiff and their First Amended Complaint. The Individuals have also appealed the district court's decisions regarding their motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and Rule 59(e) motion.
