Patrick Bray v. Bank of America, No. 16-1523 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Loken and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Bank Holding Company Act. The district court did not err in dismissing, for lack of standing, plaintiff's complaint regarding violation of the anti-tying provisions of the Act where he failed to allege sufficiently that his injury was caused by a violation of the Act. [ October 25, 2016
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-1523 ___________________________ 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for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: October 25, 2016 Filed: October 26, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Patrick Bray appeals the district court’s1 order dismissing his claim under 12 U.S.C. § 1972, the Bank Holding Company Act. Having jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. 1 The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. Bray asserted violations of anti-tying provisions of the BHCA, which the district court properly dismissed for lack of standing because Bray failed to allege sufficiently that his injury was caused by a violation of the Act. See Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377, 1386-90 (2014) (to determine standing, court first determines whether plaintiff has established requirements of constitutional standing; and if so then examines whether statutory standing exists by determining if plaintiff’s allegations establish that his interests were within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked, and that his injuries were proximately caused by violations of the statute); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992) (to establish Article III standing, plaintiff must allege, inter alia, that injury is causally connected to defendant’s allegedly illegal conduct and not to independent action of some third party not before court); Wieland v. U.S. Dep’t Health & Human Servs., 793 F.3d 949, 953-54 (8th Cir. 2015) (appellate court reviews district court’s dismissal for lack of standing de novo, accepting as true all factual allegations in complaint and drawing reasonable inferences in favor of nonmoving party; standing exists only if plaintiff suffered injury as result of defendant’s putatively illegal conduct). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -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.
