Case ID: f-appx_441/html/0683-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Patricia Diane MEEKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MURPHY AUTO GROUP, INC., d.b.a. Toyota of Winter Haven, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 11-10149
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Sept. 27, 2011.
    Raymond G. Ingalsbe, Raymond G. In-galsbe, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Brooks Charles Rathet, William L. Bro-magen, P.A., Jacksonville Beach, FL, Amanda N. Kespohl, Nicholas Francis Mooney, Bromagen & Rathet PA, Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before BARKETT, MARCUS and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

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.

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 § 1681 b(f)(2) of the FCRA, she failed to raise this argument before the district court and we will not consider 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).

AFFIRMED. 
      
      . Meeks also argued the district court erred by failing to find two Florida statutes unconstitutional, but then expressly withdrew this argument in her Reply Brief.
     
      
      . Meeks’ Motion for Leave to File Out of Time Reply Brief filed on May 5, 2011, is granted.