Patrick Bray v. Bank of America, No. 15-1148 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Loken and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Bank Holding Company Act. The district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's claim under the Act for lack of standing, and the matter is remanded to permit the district court to consider in the first instance whether plaintiff has standing under Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct 1377 (2010); dismissal of state-law claims for defamation affirmed.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on June 9, 2015.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-1148 ___________________________ Patrick Ryan Bray lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Bank of America lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: July 6, 2015 Filed: August 3, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Florida financial advisor Patrick Bray appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his claims against Bank of America based on the anti-tying provision of the Bank Holding Company Act (BHCA), 12 U.S.C. § 1972, and state defamation law; denying him leave to amend; and denying his motion for reconsideration. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and having granted rehearing of this court’s opinion and judgment of June 9, 2015, this court now affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands. The district court determined that Bray’s BHCA claim should be dismissed under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6) because Bray lacked Article III and statutory standing. After carefully reviewing the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, see Plymouth Cnty., Iowa v. Merscorp, Inc., 774 F.3d 1155, 1158-59 (8th Cir. 2014) (appellate court reviews standing determinations and dismissal for failure to state claim de novo), this court reverses the dismissal of the BHCA claim, and remands for the district court to consider in the first instance whether Bray has standing in light of Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377, 1391-92 (2010) (holding injured party who was not direct competitor of defendant may have statutory standing to bring unfair competition claim), see Sygenta Seeds, Inc. v. Bungee North America, Inc., 773 F.3d 58, 64-65 (8th Cir. 2014) (reversing dismissal of Lanham Act claim, and remanding for reconsideration in light Lexmark); Hammer v. Sam’s East, Inc., 754 F.3d 492, 498-99 (8th Cir. 2014) (examining statute that created legal right at issue to determine whether Article III standing existed). This court affirms the district court’s dismissal of Bray’s state-law claims, see Plymouth Cnty., 774 F.3d at 1158-59 (standard of review for dismissals under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)), affirms the district court’s orders in all other respects, see Mountain Home Flight Serv., Inc. v. Baxter Cnty., Ark., 758 F.3d 1038, 1045-46 (8th Cir. 2014) (appellate court reviews denial of leave to amend for abuse of discretion); Miller v. Baker Implement Co., 439 F.3d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 2006) (appellate court reviews denial of motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or 60(b) for abuse of discretion), and denies Bank of America’s pending motion to file a supplemental brief. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
