The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MARQUISE MILLER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-20-946-D
)
LEGACY BANK, )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Marquise Miller’s Motion to Strike [Doc. No. 143].
Defendant Legacy Bank timely responded [Doc. No. 155], and Plaintiff replied [Doc. No.
161]. The matter is fully briefed and at issue.
On September 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint detailing Defendant’s denial of
his application for a loan to remodel his property located at 2110 N. Lottie Avenue. Plaintiff
asserted that Defendant denied his loan because he is African American and because the
property is located in a predominately Black neighborhood. Accordingly, he sought
damages under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691, et seq. (ECOA), the
Fair Housing Act, 42. U.S.C. § 3601 (FHA), and the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981
and 1982.
After Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, Plaintiff sought leave to file an amended
complaint. See [Doc. Nos. 10, 18]. The Court granted his motion, and Plaintiff filed his
amended complaint on March 23, 2021. See Pl.’s First Am. Compl. [Doc. No. 20].
Defendant subsequently filed another motion to dismiss, which the Court granted. See
[Doc. Nos. 21, 25]. Pursuant to the Court’s order, Plaintiff’s FHA, § 1981, and § 1982
claims were dismissed with prejudice, as each claim was time-barred. In addition, the Court
dismissed Plaintiff’s ECOA claim after concluding that Plaintiff’s allegations did not show
he was qualified for the loan sought.1 The dismissal of Plaintiff’s ECOA claim was without
prejudice, with leave to amend.
Plaintiff then filed a second amended complaint, which included the addition of the
following allegations:
29. Mr. Miller at the time of denial had a credit score over 700;
31. The same year Legacy denied Mr. Miller the loan, his income was well
over $100,000;
32. Mr. Miller’s debt to credit ratio was sufficient according to Legacy
Bank’s requirements;
33. Mr. Miller’s debt to income ratio was below 25% which is acceptable by
Legacy Bank’s policies;
36. Mr. Miller’s discretionary income was more than $5,000 per month when
Legacy Bank denied the loan;
37. Mr. Miller demonstrated a cash flow sufficient to service the debt;
38. Mr. Miller was seeking at least $80,000 from Legacy Bank for a loan
with a maturity date of 10 years with a 6.5% interest rate.
See Pl.’s Sec. Am. Compl. [Doc. No. 27] at 4-5. Again, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss.
See [Doc. No. 29]. The Court denied Defendant’s motion after concluding that Plaintiff’s
allegations were minimally sufficient to state a plausible ECOA claim. The Court noted
that Plaintiff offered several factual allegations plausibly showing he was qualified for the
loan, including an income of more than $100,000 and a debt-to-credit ratio below 25%. See
1 To establish a prima facie ECOA claim, a plaintiff must plead factual allegations
demonstrating, inter alia, that the loan application was rejected despite the plaintiff’s
qualifications. See Matthiesen v. Banc One Mortg. Corp., 173 F.3d 1242, 1246 (10th Cir.
1999).
6/2/2022 Order [Doc. No. 38] at 5.
By his motion, Plaintiff now seeks to “strike” above-numbered paragraphs 31, 32,
33, 36, 37, and 38 from his complaint. See Pl.’s Mot. to Strike at 1. Plaintiff’s request,
construed liberally, is equivalent to a motion for leave to amend. Because he seeks leave
to amend his complaint after the deadline imposed by the Court’s Scheduling Order,2
Plaintiff “must demonstrate (1) good cause for seeking modification under Fed. R. Civ. P.
16(b)(4) and (2) satisfaction of the Rule 15(a) standard.” Birch v. Polaris, 812 F.3d 1238,
1247 (10th Cir. 2015) (internal citation omitted).
The Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff has carried his burden and demonstrated
good cause under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Although Plaintiff claims that Defendant “has
admitted clearly and unambiguously that [he] was qualified for the loan and that the Lottie
property was sufficient collateral,”3 the current record reflects otherwise. See, e.g. Def.’s
Answer [Doc. No. 39], ¶ 30 (“[Defendant] denies the allegations [that Plaintiff was a
qualified applicant when Defendant denied him the loan].”); see id., ¶ 140 (“[Defendant]
denies the allegations [that Plaintiff provides more than the adequate collateral along with
credit worthiness, income, and character to be granted the loan].”). Because Plaintiff has
failed to satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4), the Court declines to address Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(2). Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike [Doc. No. 143] is DENIED.
2 See Scheduling Order [Doc. No. 94]
3 See Pl.’s Mot. to Strike at 2.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 4" day of August, 2023.
Ny Q.
TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge