Swanson v. Citibank, N.A.
614 F.3d 400 (2010)
Rule of Law:
Under the plausibility standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), a complaint states a claim for relief if it provides enough factual detail to present a story that holds together and gives the defendant fair notice of the claim and its grounds. A plaintiff in a discrimination case is not required to plead facts that rule out every alternative, non-discriminatory explanation for the defendant's conduct.
Facts:
- In February 2009, Gloria Swanson, an African-American woman, applied for a home-equity loan at a Citibank branch.
- A Citibank representative, Skertich, told Swanson she could not apply alone because she owned her home jointly with her husband.
- Swanson returned with a completed application, and Skertich entered her information into a computer.
- Citibank conditionally approved Swanson for a $50,000 home-equity loan, contingent on an appraisal of her home.
- Citibank hired Andre Lanier of PCI Appraisal Services, who appraised Swanson's home at $170,000, despite her estimate of $270,000.
- Based on Lanier's low appraisal, Citibank denied Swanson's loan application.
- Two months later, Swanson hired Midwest Valuations, which appraised her home at $240,000.
- Swanson believed the low appraisal was a deliberate act of racial discrimination coordinated between Citibank and the appraisers.
Procedural Posture:
- Gloria Swanson filed a complaint against Citibank, Andre Lanier, and PCI Appraisal Services in the U.S. District Court (trial court).
- The complaint alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act and common-law fraud.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
- The district court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed all of Swanson's claims.
- Swanson, the appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, where Citibank, Lanier, and PCI were the appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a complaint alleging racial discrimination under the Fair Housing Act state a plausible claim for relief sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss when it identifies the parties, the alleged discriminatory act, and the context, but does not contain direct evidence of discriminatory intent?
Opinions:
Majority - Wood, Circuit Judge
Yes. A complaint alleging racial discrimination under the Fair Housing Act states a plausible claim for relief if it contains sufficient factual matter to give the defendant fair notice of the claim. Swanson’s complaint identified the type of discrimination (racial), by whom it was allegedly committed (Citibank and its appraisers), and when it occurred (in connection with her 2009 loan application). This is enough to present a plausible story that holds together, allowing the case to proceed to discovery. The plausibility standard does not require a plaintiff to plead facts that make her claim more compelling than opposing inferences; it only requires the court to ask if the events could have happened, not if they did happen. The court reaffirmed the holding of Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., which rejected heightened pleading standards for discrimination cases, and concluded that Swanson had provided the necessary 'short and plain statement' required by Rule 8.
Dissenting - Posner, Circuit Judge
No. The complaint fails to state a plausible claim for relief under the standard set by Ashcroft v. Iqbal. When an 'obvious alternative explanation' exists that is more likely than discrimination, the claim is not plausible. Here, the obvious alternative is that the appraiser made a common error or that Swanson was simply not qualified for the loan, given that she had been turned down by another bank and her own estimates of her home's value were inconsistent. The complaint lacks any specific allegations that would make the inference of discrimination plausible rather than merely possible. Allowing such a claim to proceed subjects defendants to the asymmetric and potentially extortionate costs of discovery based on pure speculation, which is precisely what the Supreme Court sought to prevent in Twombly and Iqbal.
Analysis:
This case serves as a crucial interpretation of the Twombly/Iqbal 'plausibility' pleading standard within the Seventh Circuit, particularly for civil rights and discrimination claims. The majority opinion resists an aggressive application of the standard, emphasizing that Rule 8 still only requires fair notice and a story that 'holds together,' rather than a high factual threshold that eliminates alternative explanations. The strong dissent from Judge Posner highlights the deep judicial divide over the purpose of pleading rules—whether they are primarily for providing notice or for weeding out potentially meritless cases before expensive discovery. This decision signals that in straightforward discrimination cases, pleading the 'who, what, and when' is sufficient to proceed, pushing back against a reading of Iqbal that would require plaintiffs to plead facts proving discriminatory intent at the outset.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Swanson v. Citibank, N.A. (2010)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"