Samuel Mickens v. Mercantile Bank Mortg. Co.
This text of 697 F. App'x 452 (Samuel Mickens v. Mercantile Bank Mortg. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Plaintiff-Appellant Samuel Mickens challenges the district court’s ruling that his Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) claims for discriminatory lending practices against Defendants Mercantile Bank Mortgage Company, LLC and its parent, Mercantile Bank Corporation (collectively Mercantile) are time-barred under 15 U.S.C. § 1691e(f). The district court held that the two-year limitations period ran from Mercantile’s last alleged culpable act in 2007, making Mickens’ 2015 filing untimely. The district court also held that Mickens was not entitled equitable tolling on the facts alleged.
On appeal, Mickens argues that the district court erred by rejecting the discovery rule and failing to apply equitable tolling, and that as a practical matter this improperly converted § 1691e(f) into a statute of repose. We review the motion to dismiss for failure-to-state-a-claim ruling de novo and, having duly considered the parties’ arguments below and on appeal, we find that the district court properly disposed of each of his arguments in its well-reasoned opinion dated October 27, 2016. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court based on the analysis set forth in its opinion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
697 F. App'x 452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samuel-mickens-v-mercantile-bank-mortg-co-ca6-2017.