Meeks v. Murphy Auto Group, Inc.

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
SEP 27, 2011
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-10149
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 8:09-cv-01050-TBM
PATRICIA DIANE MEEKS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MURPHY AUTO GROUP, INC.,
d.b.a. Toyota of Winter Haven,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(September 27, 2011)
Before BARKETT, MARCUS and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

-- 1 of 3 --

Patricia Meeks appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in
favor of Murphy Auto Group d/b/a/ Toyota of Winter Haven (MAG). Meeks
alleges MAG violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681
et seq., and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1691, et seq., and
Regulation B, 12 C.F.R. §§ 202.1, et seq. (ECOA). Meeks argues the district court
erred: (1) when it construed the credit contract signed by Meeks and MAG; and
(2) when it applied the FCRA, the ECOA, and the Truth in Lending Act (TILA),
15 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq.1
After reviewing the parties’ briefs and the record, we affirm the district
court’s thorough and well-reasoned December 15, 2010, opinion. The district
court did not err when it construed the credit contract signed by Meeks and MAG,
nor did it err when it applied the FCRA, the ECOA, and the TILA to Meeks’
claims. The district court was correct that MAG acted with a permissible purpose
under the FCRA in each of the credit pulls at issue in this case and that MAG was
not obligated to provide Meeks with a notice of adverse action under the ECOA.
Further, insofar as Meeks argues MAG violated § 1681b(f)(2) of the FCRA,
she failed to raise this argument before the district court and we will not consider
Meeks also argued the district court erred by failing to find two Florida statutes1
unconstitutional, but then expressly withdrew this argument in her Reply Brief.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

it now. See Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir.
2004) (“This Court has repeatedly held that an issue not raised in the district court
and raised for the first time in an appeal will not be considered by this court.”)
(quotations omitted).2
AFFIRMED.
Meeks’ Motion for Leave to File Out of Time Reply Brief filed on May 5, 2011, is2
granted.
3

-- 3 of 3 --