Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 11-1520
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, District Judge.
(1:10-cv-01076-JKB)
Argued:
Decided:
May 2, 2012
his
complaint.
to
establish
action
any
and
denying
plausible
him
claims
leave
under
to
amend
law, 1
Maryland
his
we
denying
him
leave
to
amend.
We
accordingly
affirm
the
I.
A.
We
accept
complaint.
as
true
the
facts
alleged
in
Van
Leers
Cir. 2011).
Van Leer worked in the waste-handling industry, developing
solid
waste-disposal
facilities
then
selling
to
developments,
them
the
King
in
interested
George
Maryland
firms.
County
and
Landfill
Virginia
One
in
of
and
these
Virginia,
to
pay
him
royalties
(Royalty
Stream)
totaling
over
$1.3
development
agreements.
caused
As
bankruptcy in 1999.
him
result,
to
Van
default
Leer
on
filed
several
for
loan
chapter
11
His broker
Royalty
Stream
or
purchasing
it
outright.
After
making
agreed
to
provide
Deutsche
Bank
with
certain
Van
written
Transaction,
the
royalty
payments,
the
waste
disposal
J.A. 17.
confidential
for
3
the
sole
purpose
of
categories,
any
information
available
or
is
disclosure
by
[Van
known
that
by
Leer]
is
or
[Deutsche
is
not
becomes
Bank]
prior
considered
publicly
to
its
confidential
Id.
Deutsche Bank
all
conditions
purchasing
Id. 19.
the
outlined
Royalty
Deutsche
below,
Stream
Bank
for
included
it
was
interested
approximately
a
number
of
$23
in
million.
qualifications.
and
any
subsequent
binding
commitment
subjected
conditions,
any
including
future
the
commitment
banks
to
would
be
Second, Deutsche
five
completion
distinct
of,
and
After
sending
the
letter,
Deutsche
Bank
ceased
all
communication with Van Leer and did not respond to any of his
further
inquiries.
Over
month
later,
on
June
26,
the
Deutsche
Bank,
Van
Leer
was
With no commitment
unable
to
complete
Deutsche
the
rights
confirmed
the
to
the
sale
Royalty
and
Stream.
closed
Van
The
bankruptcy
Leers
bankruptcy
proceedings.
B.
Almost three years after the auction of the Royalty Stream,
Van
Leer
filed
suit
against
Deutsche
interference
with
misrepresentation,
Bank.
His
original
prospective
and
business
opportunity,
The
of
fraud.
thrust
Van
in
to
good
purchase
faith,
the
and
Royalty
using
his
Stream
at
confidential
auction
for
of
complaint
this
motion,
further
Van
detailing
Leer
his
attached
allegations
proposed
and
As
amended
striking
his
tortious-interference claim.
Van Leer alleged that Deutsche Bank breached its contract
with him by failing to consider and process his loan or sale
application
in
good
faith
and
by
neglecting
to
conduct
J.A. 199.
due
Van
evaluate
transactions
his
with
application
other
parties.
and
refrained
He
further
from
pursuing
alleged
that
Id. 200.
Finally,
process
his
application,
using
confidential
to
act
Royalty Stream.
reasonably
Id.
and
honestly
in
purchasing
the
Leers
similar claims.
of
care
to
negligent-misrepresentation
count
included
ensure
that
its
representations
were
truthful
Id.
Bank
had
already
launched
plan
to
purchase
the
Id. 205.
amend his complaint, the court found that the proposed amended
complaint contained the same fatal deficiencies as the original
complaint.
the
court,
allegations
to
nothing
unfounded
more
than
speculation.
further
The
conclusory
court
therefore
II.
We review the district courts denial of leave to amend for
abuse of discretion.
only
when
the
amendment
would
be
prejudicial
to
the
opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the
moving party, or amendment would be futile.
Matrix Capital
2009).
We
adjudge
amendment
futile
when
the
proposed
Wilson v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 525 F.3d 370, 376 (4th
Cir. 2008).
To
survive
plaintiff
must
dismissal
for
failure
establish
facial
to
state
plausibility
claim,
by
pleading
that
alleged.
reviewing
the
court
defendant
must
is
take
liable
the
facts
for
in
the
the
misconduct
light
most
conclusions,
or
arguments.
Giarratano
v.
Johnson, 521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir. 2008) (quoting E. Shore
Mkts., Inc. v. J.D. Assocs. Ltd. Pship, 213 F.3d 175, 180 (4th
Cir. 2000)).
mere
enhancement
naked
or
his
assertions
devoid
allegations
of
establish
further
only
factual
sheer
Iqbal, 129
a
a
complaint
defendants
pleads
facts
liability,
9
that
it
are
stops
merely
short
of
consistent
the
line
plaintiff
must
nudge[]
line
from
abused
its
He
maintains
an
conceivable to plausible.
[his]
claims
across
the
III.
Van
Leer
argues
at
the
that
the
outset
district
that
the
court
court
applied
Turning to
conclude
that
the
the
significant
district
court
did
not
abuse
its
to
the
dismissal
landscape
[his]
claims
across
the
line
from
conceivable
to
A.
Van
Leer
first
alleges
contractual
obligations
application
for
to
loan
or
that
him
Deutsche
by
sale,
Bank
breached
its
to
consider
his
perform
due
failing
neglecting
to
contractual
faith
and
duty
conduct
memorializing
such
to
due
an
consider
his
diligence,
loan
he
obligation.
application
points
to
Nor
could
no
in
good
provision
he.
The
Van
Leer
Bank
and
agreed
Deutsche
only
Bank.
that
it
Under
would
that
use
agreement,
Van
Leers
11
document
did
not
obligate
Deutsche
Bank
Deutsche
diligence.
Banks
May
14
letter
to
to
J.A. 17.
consider
Van
mentioned
due
any
subsequent
formal
indicated
that
agreement
was
subject
to
the
letter
was
not
binding
939,
945
(D.
Md.
2000)
(reasoning
that
letter
between
the
parties
demonstrates
that
of
intent
Because no
Deutsche
Bank
He
Indeed,
Deutsche
Bank
or
how
the
bank
could
have
used
that
law,
requires
act[ed]
in
such
to
manner
demonstrate
as
to
that
prevent
the
[the
prevented
him
from
Confidentiality Agreement.
how
Deutsche
contravention
Bank
of
the
used
abiding
by
his
duties
under
the
confidential
Confidentiality
13
information
Agreement,
Van
Leer
in
is
unable
to
demonstrate
that
the
bank
did
not
perform
its
B.
Van Leers negligence claim revolves around Deutsche Banks
alleged breach of its duty to consider and process his loan or
sale application in good faith and with reasonable diligence.
Van Leer is unable to establish that Deutsche Bank owed him any
duty apart from its contractual obligations, and his proposed
amended complaint consequentially fails to state a claim for
negligence.
Claims of negligence under Maryland law must establish four
familiar elements:
generally
negligence.
do
not
for
claims
sounding
in
Some cases, to
customer.
Yet this is
highly
irregular
combination
of
factors
that
the
Id. at 75657.
Id.
at
757.
indicated
that
it
plaintiffs
no
more
unsatisfied
with
Shortly
had
made
than
those
thereafter,
a
mistake
$41,400.
terms,
sought
however,
and
Id.
could
The
financing
the
loan
bank
the
plaintiffs,
from
another
to
accept
the
banks
offer
of
Id.
$41,400
They instead
and
secure
negligence.
Id.
Id. at 759.
the
[plaintiffs]
particularly
vulnerable
and
dependent
upon the Banks exercise of due care, the court found such an
intimate nexus present in the case before it.
Id. at 76264.
relationship
between
Van
Id. at 76263.
Leer
and
Deutsche
Bank
We accordingly conclude
Supp. 1078, 1084 (D. Md. 1989) (finding no duty of care and
distinguishing
fairly
standard
plaintiffs
apart).
case
were
before
business
exposed
to
it,
in
which
plaintiff
sought
loan,
from
Jacques,
in
extraordinary
risk
if
deal
which
fell
C.
Turning to Van Leers claim of negligent misrepresentation,
we conclude that it fails for the same reason as his negligence
claim.
Under
Maryland
law,
plaintiff
alleging
negligent
17
establish that Deutsche Bank owed him a duty of care, see supra
Section III.B, so he has failed to state a claim for negligent
misrepresentation.
D.
Van Leer alleges finally that Deutsche Bank committed fraud
by falsely stating that it was carrying out due diligence when
it actually did not intend to perform such due diligence.
Van
Stream
opportunity
to
from
the
sell
bankruptcy,
the
Royalty
depriving
Stream
[him]
himself.
of
J.A.
his
205.
(1) the
(4)
the
misrepresentation;
and
plaintiff
(5)
the
justifiably
relied
plaintiff
suffered
that
on
the
damages
plaintiff
alleging
18
fraud
state
with
Fed. R.
Civ. P. 9(b).
Van Leers general allegations are insufficient to satisfy
Rule
9s
heightened
therefore
proper.
particularity
pleading
He
the
eschews
standard,
the
circumstances
and
injunction
dismissal
to
constituting
state
fraud,
is
with
id.,
Van
Leers
allegations
are
all
the
more
lacking
when
which
revealed
that
the
Creditors
Committee
planned to auction the Royalty Stream and that the highest bid
submitted to that point was only $11.5 million.
decision--based
the
nefarious.
factual
Royalty
But
on
Stream
these
enhancement,
publicly
at
naked
Iqbal,
available
auction
assertions
129
S.
Ct.
into
information--to
something
devoid
at
1949
of
more
further
(internal
19
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the
district court.
AFFIRMED
20