Randall White v. Bank of America National Association

Eleventh Circuit

Randall White v. Bank of America National Association

599 F. App'x 379

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedApril 7, 2015

Docket14-13369

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 599 F. App'x 379 (Randall White v. Bank of America National Association) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Randall White v. Bank of America National Association, 599 F. App'x 379 (11th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In his amended complaint, Randall White alleged that in January 2005, he gave Green Point Mortgage Funding, Inc., a note in the principal amount of $232,000 secured by a mortgage on real property in' Jupiter, Florida; that Green Point appraised the property at $290,000; and that the Palm Beach County Appraisal Report *381 indicated that the actual value of the property was $138,000. The amended complaint contains three claims against Green Point. Two are relevant here as claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). More specifically, Counts II and III allege that Green Point is liable for the inflated property appraisal under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)-(d).

Green Point moved the District Court to dismiss White’s amended complaint on the ground that the RICO claims were barred by the four-year statute of limitations. Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Assocs., Inc., 483 U.S. 143, 156, 107 S.Ct. 2759, 2767, 97 L.Ed.2d 121 (1987) (“[W]e conclude that ... the federal policies that lie behind RICO and the practicalities of RICO litigation make the selection of the 4-year statute of limitations for Clayton Act actions, 15 U.S.C. § 15b, the most appropriate limitations period for RICO actions.”). The District Court, in an order entered on June 26, 2014, agreed that the claims were time-barred and dismissed White’s claims with prejudice.

White appeals. We affirm. We note that White did not oppose Green Point’s motion to dismiss. As a general rule, a party presented with a motion to dismiss “must proffer some legal basis to support his cause of action.” Cnty. of McHenry v. Ins. Co. of the West, 438 F.3d 813, 818 (7th Cir.2006). And “[arguments raised for the first time on appeal are not properly before this Court.” Hurley v. Moore, 233 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir.2000). The arguments White presents in support of the timeliness of his claims were not presented to the District Court. We therefore do not consider them.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

In his amended complaint, Randall White alleged that in January 2005, he gave Green Point Mortgage Funding, Inc., a note in the principal amount of $232,000 secured by a mortgage on real property in' Jupiter, Florida; that Green Point appraised the property at $290,000; and that the Palm Beach County Appraisal Report *381 indicated that the actual value of the property was $138,000. The amended complaint contains three claims against Green Point. Two are relevant here as claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). More specifically, Counts II and III allege that Green Point is liable for the inflated property appraisal under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)-(d).

Green Point moved the District Court to dismiss White’s amended complaint on the ground that the RICO claims were barred by the four-year statute of limitations. Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Assocs., Inc., 483 U.S. 143, 156, 107 S.Ct. 2759, 2767, 97 L.Ed.2d 121 (1987) (“[W]e conclude that ... the federal policies that lie behind RICO and the practicalities of RICO litigation make the selection of the 4-year statute of limitations for Clayton Act actions, 15 U.S.C. § 15b, the most appropriate limitations period for RICO actions.”). The District Court, in an order entered on June 26, 2014, agreed that the claims were time-barred and dismissed White’s claims with prejudice.

White appeals. We affirm. We note that White did not oppose Green Point’s motion to dismiss. As a general rule, a party presented with a motion to dismiss “must proffer some legal basis to support his cause of action.” Cnty. of McHenry v. Ins. Co. of the West, 438 F.3d 813, 818 (7th Cir.2006). And “[arguments raised for the first time on appeal are not properly before this Court.” Hurley v. Moore, 233 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir.2000). The arguments White presents in support of the timeliness of his claims were not presented to the District Court. We therefore do not consider them.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

599 F. App'x 379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/randall-white-v-bank-of-america-national-association-ca11-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack