Court filing
RESPONSE to Motion re 76 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 67… — Agent Fee Litigation (Dkt. 80)
Summary
Defendant Truist Bank's response to the plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to prepare an omnibus response, filed July 9, 2020 in Sport & Wheat CPA PA v. ServisFirst Bank Inc., Synovus Bank, The First, A National Association, and Truist Bank, Case No. 3:20-cv-5425-TKW-HTC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division. The response is submitted under the court's order of July 8, 2020 at Dkt. No. 79. It states that Truist does not oppose the extension of time but opposes leave to file a single omnibus response to its own motion to dismiss at Dkt. No. 67 and the motions filed by two co-defendants. It argues that the relevant facts vary by defendant and that its motion raises distinct legal arguments, and asks the court to deny the motion to the extent it seeks leave for an omnibus response.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
SPORT & WHEAT CPA PA,
a Florida corporation, individually
and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated businesses and
individuals,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 3:20-cv-5425-TKW-HTC
v.
SERVISFIRST BANK INC.;
SYNOVUS BANK;
THE FIRST, A NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION; and
TRUIST BANK,
Defendants.
DEFENDANT TRUIST BANK’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
TO PREPARE AN OMNIBUS RESPONSE
Pursuant to this Court’s Order of July 8, 2020 [Dkt. No. 79], Defendant Truist
Bank (“Truist”) submits this response to Plaintiff Sport & Wheat (“Sport &
Wheat”)’s Motion for Extension of Time to Prepare an Omnibus Response [Dkt. No.
76]. As Sport & Wheat informed the Court [Dkt. No. 77], Truist does not consent
to the Motion.
Truist does not oppose the requested extension of time. But Truist does
oppose Sport & Wheat’s request to submit an omnibus response to Truist’s Motion
1
to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 67] and the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants ServisFirst
[Dkt. No. 49] and The First [Dkt. No. 69].
Truist’s Motion to Dismiss is unique among its co-defendants’ motions and
Truist thus believes consolidation is inappropriate. Truist makes similar arguments
to those raised by the other defendants here; however, as Sport & Wheat’s opposition
to Synovus’ Motion to Dismiss illustrates [Dkt. No. 56], the pled and unpled facts
relevant to Sport & Wheat’s purported claims are specific to and vary by each
defendant. Sport & Wheat’s desire to throw all three defendants’ facts together in
hopes that in combination there is enough to support a claim will only complicate
the Court’s task of resolving each defendant’s motion.
In addition, Truist makes unique legal arguments. It is the only defendant to
explicitly contend that the First Interim Final Rule’s subsection addressing the
payment of agent fees from the lender’s fee is invalid. Truist also approaches other
issues differently than its co-defendants, including by clarifying that federal law
preempts Sport & Wheat’s purported state law claims.
Given these differences, Truist’s Motion to Dismiss warrants an individual
response. Truist supports judicial efficiencies and its opposition does not preclude
Sport & Wheat from duplicating or cross-referencing arguments that it contends
applies to multiple briefs. But Truist maintains that individual responses tailored to
the facts pled about Truist and the arguments made by Truist will better serve this
2
Court in evaluating the distinctive grounds Truist raises for dismissing the Amended
Complaint. Truist therefore requests that this Court deny Sport & Wheat’s motion
to the extent that it seeks leave to file an omnibus response.
This 9th day of July, 2020.
/s/ Cheryl L. Haas
Cheryl L. Haas (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Georgia Bar No. 316081
chaas@mcguirewoods.com
Meredith Laughlin Allen (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Georgia Bar No. 901999
mlallen@mcguirewoods.com
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
1230 Peachtree Street N.E., Suite 2100
Atlanta, GA 30309-3534
T: (404) 443-5500
F: (404) 443-5599
Kathryn M. Barber (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Virginia Bar No. 88992
kbarber@mcguirewoods.com
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
Gateway Plaza
800 East Canal Street
Richmond, VA 23219-3916
T: (804) 775-1227
F: (804) 698-2227
Emily Y. Rottmann
Florida Bar No. 93154
erottman@mcguirewoods.com
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
50 N Laura Street, Suite 3300
Jacksonville, FL 32202
T: (904) 798-3200
F: (904) 798-3207
Attorneys for Truist Bank
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Cheryl L. Haas, do hereby CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing Defendant Truist Bank’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of
Time to Prepare an Omnibus Response has been furnished to all counsel of record
via ECF on this 9th day of July 2020.
/s/ Cheryl L. Haas
Cheryl L. Haas (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Georgia Bar No. 316081
chaas@mcguirewoods.com
4
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.flnd.190491.80.0.pdf
- Size
- 129,218 bytes
- SHA-256
- 4747abdd2e3de8b04db629997d0cadfa5b0cd5539a551059a219dc42e20edef6
- Original
- No public link identified.