Jeanie Gonzalez v. Beneficial Mortgage Company , 471 F. App'x 119 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1397
JEANIE GONZALEZ,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
and
MARCUS GONZALEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
BENEFICIAL MORTGAGE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA, a Business Entity,
form unknown; HSBC FINANCE CORPORATION, d/b/a Beneficial
Mortgage Company of Virginia,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
INTEGRATED REAL ESTATE PROCESSING, a Business Entity, form
unknown; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS,
INCORPORATED, a Business Entity, form unknown; DOES 1-100,
inclusive,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior
District Judge. (7:10-cv-00235-JCT)
Submitted: March 2, 2012 Decided: April 5, 2012
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henry W. McLaughlin, III, LAW OFFICE OF HENRY MCLAUGHLIN, P.C.,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. George E. Kostel, NELSON
MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Washington, D.C., for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Jeanie Gonzalez appeals the district court’s order
granting Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss
her civil action seeking rescission of a secured consumer credit
transaction under the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C.A.
§§ 1601-1667f (West 2009 & Supp. 2011). Gonzalez argues on
appeal that she adequately pled TILA violations with respect to
a credit transaction in which Defendants required her to sign an
agreement containing an arbitration clause and failed to
disclose as a finance charge a $928.40 charge for title
insurance. We affirm.
We review de novo the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6)
dismissal for failure to state a claim. Giarratano v. Johnson,
521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir. 2008). In this regard, we accept as
true all factual allegations contained in the complaint.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). While a plaintiff’s
statement of her claim “need only give the defendant fair notice
of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests,”
id. at 93 (internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted), a
complaint may survive a motion to dismiss only if it “states a
plausible claim for relief” that “permit[s] the court to infer
more than the mere possibility of misconduct” based on “its
judicial experience and common sense.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, ___, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009).
3
After review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we
conclude that the district court properly dismissed Gonzalez’
amended complaint. Gonzalez failed to state a plausible claim
for relief under the TILA because, under an objective reading,
the agreement containing the arbitration clause did not render
unclear or not conspicuous the disclosure of Gonzalez’ right to
rescind the credit transaction. Further, because the $928.40
charge for title insurance was not imposed in violation of
Virginia law, Gonzalez’ claim that the charge was not bona fide
and therefore improperly excluded from the listed finance
charges is without merit.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4