## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09
- 2455 T RAV IS M. B ONTE a nd J OLENE A. B ONTE , P la intif fs-A pp ella nts, v. U
. S. B ANK, N .A ., D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 3:08- cv-00696

— Step hen L . C ro ck er, Magis trate Judge
. A RG UE D F EB RU AR Y 9, 2010

— D ECI DE D O CT OB ER 19, 2010

Befo re P OSNER, R OV NER, an d S YKES, C ircu it Judges . R OV NER, Cir cu i tJudg e. Tra vi s a nd J ol ene Bonte sued U
. S. B an k, N
. A
. un d er th e T rut h in Len d ing A ct (“T I L A ”), 1 5 U .S.C . §§ 1 64 0, ets eq . , s e e k i n gmo r t g a g e r e s c i s s i o n. Theirco m pla i nt al l ege s that U.S
. Bank succe eded a m or tga ge len d e r t h at vio lat ed T IL A by m iss ta tin g c er ta in charg es re l ate d to th e B onte s’ m or tga ge. The di str i ct cour t g ran te d U
. S. Bank’ s m oti on t o dism i ss, Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 12 ( b) ( 6) , afterco ncl ud i ng tha t the Bontes f ai l ed to2 N o. 09
- 2455
re spond to U
. S. Bank’ s co ntenti on that no ne o fthe m i ssta tem ents i denti fi ed i n the com pla i nt were “m ate ri al, ” a s re quir ed by TI LA f orm ortga ge re sci ssi on. The Bontes appeal, but aga i n f ai l to pro vi de any m eani ngful re s p o n se to U .S. B an k’s cla im th atn on e o f th e a lleg ed ly mi s s t a t e d d i s c l o s u r e s e n t i t l e th e m t o r e s c i s s i o n . We thus affi rm the dism i ssa l o fthei r com pla i nt.
I. Ac c o r d i n gt o th e f a c t s i n th e c o mpl a i n t, wh i c h we a c c e p ta s t r u e a tth i s s t a g e , th e B o n t e s o wnth e i r h o me i n W oo dvil l e, W i sco nsi n. I n Decem ber20 05, theyto ok ou t a th ird m or tg ag e o n t h e h o m e t h ro u gh FM F C ap ita l, LL C fo r approxi m at el y $ 315, 000, payab l e o vera 30- yea r peri od. The pro ceeds ofthe m ortga ge w er e use d, i n part, as paym ent o n the B on te s’ fi rs t m or tga ge w i th Chase B an k and thei r seco nd m or tga ge w i th Bre m erBank. Subse quentl y, the l oan w as tr ansfer re d to U
. S. Bank, w hi ch i ni ti ate d f or ecl osur e proce ed in gs ag ain st th e B on te s. T h e fo re c los u r e a c tio n w as d ism iss ed in A pri l 20 07. T he Bon tes later f ile d su it in fed eral district court se ek i ngr es ci ss i o n o fthe thi r d m o r tg ag e ba se d o n “ i na cc ura te and i nconsi ste n t d i scl osur es” i n thei r H U D-1 set tl em ent sta tem ent a nd r equi re d TILA st ate m ent a nd di sc l o s u r e s . U
. S
. B a n kmo v e d t o d i s mi s s th e B o n t e s ’ c o mpla i nt under F edera l Rule o f C i vi l Pro cedure 12(b) ( 6) f o r f ai l ur e to s ta te a c l ai m , a r g ui ng th atno ne o fthe al leg ed er ro rs i n the disc l osur e s tat em ents re l ate d to a “ m a terial” d isclosure, as r eq uired f or rescission m oreN o. 09
- 2455 3 th anthr ee da y s afte r the mor tg ag e. I n r es po ns e, the B o n t e s r e i t e r a t e d th e a l l e g a t i o n s i n th e i r c o mpl a i n t an d ar g ue d g en er al l y tha t TI LA sho ul d b e l ibe r al l y c o nstr ued i n f avo r ofco nsum er s. The dis tr i ct c ourtgr anted U
. S. B an k’s m oti on t o dism i ss , c o nc l udi ngtha t th e Bo nt es ha d f ai l ed to de m o nstr ate t h at the f acts l ai d out i n thei r com pla i nt ent i tl ed them to r esci ssi on. I n re sponse to U .S. B ank’ s a sse rt i on in its m ot i o n t o d ism iss th at n on e o f th e t en alleg ed ly m i ss ta te d c ha r ges i den ti fi ed i n the Bo nt es ’ c o m pl aint wer e “mat er i al, ” th e Bo nt es ha d s i m pl y res ta te d the f ac ts s etf o r thi n the i r c o m pl aintand d escr ibe d the g enerall eg als ta nda r ds appl i cabl e i n TI LA c as es . Co nc l ud i ng tha t thi s f a i l ur e t o r e s po nd a mou nted to wai ve r, the di st r i ctc o ur t di smi ss ed th ei r c o m pl aint f orfa i l ure to sta te a cl ai m . W ai veras i de, the dist ri ct cour t furtherco ncl ud ed that U
. S. Bank’ s a rgum ents w er e s ubstanti vel y c or re ct, enti tl i ng it t o dism i ssa l o n the m er i ts.
II. W e re v iew de novo th e d istri ct cou rt’s grant of a m ot ion to d ism iss u n d er Fe d . R. C iv. P . 12(b )(6)
. E.g
. , R eger De v . , L L C v . Nat ’ l Ci ty Bank, 592 F. 3d 759, 76 3 ( 7th Cir
. 20 10)
. W e a ccept a l l f acts i n the c om pla i nt as tr ue, v i e w th e m i n th e l i g h t mo s t f a v o r a b l e t o th e B o nt es , a nd d ra w all rea so n ab le in fer en c es in th eir fav or . Id. A l though th e ba r t o s ur vi ve a mot i o n t o di sm iss i s no t hi g h, the com p lai nt m us t “con tain su ffici en t factu al m att e r, ac c ep te d as tru e, to ‘st at e a c laim to relie f th at is p lau sib le4 N o. 09
- 2455 on i ts f ac e. ’ ” Ash crof

tv. Iq b al , 12 9 S
. Ct. 19 37, 19 49 ( 2009 ) ( quoti ng B el l A tl
. C orp. v. Tw om bly, 550 U
. S. 544, 570 (2007 ))
. B ec au se th e B on te s s ee k re sc iss ion of th eir loan w ell outsi de t h e o rdi narythr ee- day per i od al l owed under T IL A , see 15 U
. S. C
. § 1635(a); 12 C
. F.R. § 226.2 3 (a )( 3), the y mus t de mon s t r a t e tha t the l e nd e r f a i l e d t o m ake a req u ire d “m at er ial ” d i sc los u re , see 15 U
. S. C
. § 1635(f) (exten d ing ri gh t of rescission to earli er of three years or un tilthe sale of th e p r o p erty); 12 C
. F.R. § 226.23(a)( 3); see also R .G . Fin. C o rp. v. V erga ra-N un ez , 44 6 F
. 3d 178, 187 ( 1stCi r. 20 06) ( noti ng tha t TI LA al l ows re sci ssi on for u p to th re e y ea rs w h en le n d er om its ce rt ain m ate ri aldi scl osur es)
. The Bontes ’ co m pla in t i denti fi es ten s ep ar ate char ges thatdi ffer ed on thei r TI LA st ate
m en t and disclosu res an d the ac com p an yin g H U D -1 set tl em ent s tat em en t forthe m or tga ge. The Bontes al l ege th a tt a k e n t o g e th e r, th e d i s c r e p a n c i e s b e t we e n th e t wo docum ents ( both att ached to the com pla i n t) m i sst ate d the “ A PR, the a m ou n t fi nanced, and fi nance char ge as so c iat ed w ith th is t ra n sa c tio n .” The dis cl osur e r equi re m en ts u nd erTI LA m ay be found in the s tatute i tse l f, 15 U
. S. C. §§ 1601 ets eq . , t he i m ple m enting re gul ati on ( “Regul ati on Z, ” pro m ulg ate d by the Feder al Reser ve Board) , 12 C.F
. R. §§ 226. 1- 226. 59, an d the F ede r alRe se r ve Bo ar d’ s bi ndi ngS ta ffCo m m enta ry , 12 C .F.R . pt . 226 , Su p p . I ; s e ea l s o 15 U
. S. C. § 1 604( a) ( dir ectin g the Boa rd to pre scr ibe r egul ati ons i m ple

m e nt ing TIL A ) am e nde d b y PL 1 1 1
- 2 0 3 , J ul y2 1 , 2 0 1 0 , 12 4 St at 1376
. Ordi nari l y, we d efe r to the Com m entar y when i nter preting TI LA and i ts disc l osur e r equi re m ents. SeeN o. 09
- 2455 5 Ford M otor Cre dit C o. v. M il hollin , 44 4 U.S
. 55 5, 56 5 ( 1980 ) (“[D ]efe re n c e [ to th e F ed er al R es er ve B oa rd ] is es p ec ially ap p ro p ria te in t h e p ro c es s o f int er p re tin g t h e T ru th in L en d in g A c t a n d R eg u lat ion Z .”); Ha m m v. A m eriquest M o r tg . Co. , 50 6 F
. 3d 525, 52 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( “Courts pay par ti cul arheed t o the F RB StaffCom m entar y t o TI LA’ s r egul at i o ns wh e n e v a l ua t i nga n a l l e g e d T I LA vi ola ti on. ”)
. S ecti on 2 26. 18 ofRegul ati on Z i denti fi es eightee n p ieces of inform ation to be d isc losed to borro w er s in cr edi t t ra nsacti ons such as the Bonte s’ m or tga ge . See 12 C
. F.R. § 226.18(a)- (r)
. O f th ese eighte en disclosu res, th e fol low ing fi ve q ua li fy a s “ mat e r i a l ” s o a s t o s up po r tr e s c i s s i o n f o r u p t o thr ee y ea r s: ( 1) the a nnua l pe r ce nt ag e rat e ( “APR” ) ; ( 2) the fi nance char ge; ( 3) the am ou n t fi nanced; ( 4) the tot alo f p ay m e n t s; an d (5) th e p ay m en t s c h ed u le. See 12 C. F
. R. § 22 6. 23 ( a) ( 3)
. As st at ed ab o ve , th e Bo nt es’ co m pl aint al l e g e s tha tthe c ha r g e s l i s t e d o n the i r T I LA d i s cl osu r e st at ement( whi chc o nf o r m ed t o the mode l Tr uth- i nLend i ng Di scl osur e S tat em ent in A pp end ix H -2 o fRegul at i o n Z) misstate d the fi na nc e ch ar g e, the APR, a nd th e amoun t fi na nc ed. But th e Bo nt es never exp l ain how th e te n al l eg edl y mis st at ed ch ar g es a r e r el at ed to the fi na nc e c ha r g e , the APR, a nd the a mou ntfi na nc e d. The fi n an c e charg e incl ud es any fee orchar ge re prese nt i ngthe c o stof c redi t, fr o m i nt er es t ( o r di na r i l y the l ar ges t co m ponent o fthe fi nance charge ) to any tr ansac ti o n fee s “i m po se d di rectly o r i ndi r ec tly b ythe cre dit or a s an i nci dent to o r a co nd i ti on o fthe extensi on o fc r edi t. ” 12 C. F
. R. § 2 26.4(a). The APR a nd the a m o unt6 N o. 09
- 2455 fi na nc ed ar e der i ve d from th e fi na nc e ch ar g e an d the am ou n t o f th e n ot e. See 12 C. F
. R. § 22 6. 22 ( a) ( 1) ( “T he annual perce ntage r ate i s a m eas ure oft h e c osto f cr edi t, ex pr es se d a s a y ea r l y r at e[
. ] ”)
. The a m o unt f i na n c e d i s th e t o t a l l o a n a mo u n t a ft e r s u b t r a c t i n go ut an y pr e-p aid fin an c e c h ar ge s. See 12 C.F
. R. § 226. 18(b) ( am oun t fi nanced i s netam ount o fcr edi t e xtended fo r th e co ns um er’s us e)
. Thu s, the APR a nd the a m o unt fi nanced ar e der i ved from the fi nance char ge. The thr ee to ge th er es se n tia lly re p re se n t t h e c os t o f cr ed it. Cf. F e d. D ep os it In s. C or p ., FD IC Law , Regulations, Rela te d Acts , Part22 6

— T rut h In L en d ing (Regu lation Z) §226.1(b), h t tp : //w w w . fd i c . g o v/r e gu l a ti o n s/l a w s /ru l e s / 6 5 0 0
- 1 4 0 0
. h t ml ( ex pl aini ngtha t pur po se o fTILA “ i s to pr o m o te the i nform ed use o fco nsum ercr edi t byr equi ring di scl osur es abou t its term s and cost”). I n its m oti on t o dism i ss and again i n i ts bri efo n appe al, U. S
. Ba nke xpl ains , wi thc i ta ti o ns to th e r el ev an t re gu lat ion s a n d C om m en ta ry , w h y n on e o f th e t en all e g e d l y i n a c c u r a t e c h a r g e s i d e n t i fi e d i n th e Bo n t e s ’ c o mpl ainta r e part o fthe APR, fi na nc e ch ar g e, o r a m o unt fi nanced

— i n shor t, “m ate ri al ” di scl os ures as r equi re d for res c iss i o n u n d er T IL A . For e x am p le, fou r of t h e a ll eg edl y mis st at ed ch ar g es i denti fi ed i n the c o m pl aint r e l a t e t o di s b ur s e men to fl o a n pr o c e e ds

— i
. e . , h o w the B ont es us ed their l oan ( to p ay offother m ortgages ). U
. S. Ban kmai nt ains tha t di sb ur se m en ts t o c r edi tor s an d l o anpa y o ff s ar e u nrel at ed to the fi na nc e ch ar g e, the APR, o r the a mou ntfi na nc e d. T he Bon tes also all ege a d iscrep an cy in the disclosu re of p ro p er ty ta x es , bu t p ro p er ty ta x es are sp ec ifica llyN o. 09
- 2455 7
e x c l u d e d fr o m th e fi n a nc e ch a r g e b y th e b i n d i n gC o mm e n t a r y . 1 2 C
. F
. R
. P a r t2 2 6 , S u p p . I, § 2 2 6
. 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( i ) ( A) (ex p lain in g t h at “t ax e s . . . p aid by bo th ca sh an d cr ed it custo m er s” ar e no t fi nance char ges). U .S
. Bank further ex p lai ns that f ou r m ore of th e all eged errors

— ti tl e i nsu r an ce , ARM e ndo r se m en t, r ec o r d i ngs er vi ce fee s, a nd cour i erfees

— re l ate to char ges pai d to a t i tl e co m pany, not a c r e di t o r . Bu twi th l i mi t e d e xc e pt i o ns n o ta l l ege d he re, TILA sp ecifi cally ex em p ts fees pa yable to third p ar tie s su c h as tit le c o m p a n ies
. See 15 U
. S. C. § 1 605( a) ( “The fi nance char ge shal l noti ncl ud e fees and am ounts i m p os ed by th ird p ar ty clo sin g a ge n ts (inc lu d in g . . . tit le com p an ies)[
. ]”); 12 C
. F.R. § 226.4(a)( 2 ) (sam e). M oreover, these f our charg es ar e e xem pted f ro m the fi nance charg e by15 U
. S. C. § 1 605(e)( 1)
- ( 6) , wh i ch excl ud es fees f o r “ ti tl e i ns ur an ce ” an d o th erfee s f o r “ pr epa r i ngl o an re l ate d docum ents .” See a lso 12 C
. F. R. § 226. 4( c) ( 7)
. That l ea ve s only the a l l eg ed m i ss ta te m en t o fthe s et tl ement fee s, w hi chU. S
. Ba nkc o nt en ds ar e ex empte d b y the sa m e two exc l us i o ns j us t di sc us se d. M o r eo ve r, U. S
. Ba nk poi nts o ut thatthe Bontes al l ege an o ver sta tem ent o f thei r set tl em ent fees , a nd TI LA pro hibi ts onl y the un ders t at e men t o fth e re q u ire d d isc los u re s. See 1 5 U. S
. C. § 1 60 5(f) (1)( B ); 12 C .F.R . § 22 6.2 3(g )(1) (ii); see also C a rm ichael v. Th e P a y m ent Cente r, Inc. , 33 6 F
. 3d 636, 64 1- 42 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03) ( affi rm i ng sum m ar y j ud gm ent forl ender that ove rs ta te d finance char ge and tot alo fpaym ents be ca us e TI LA “ pr o tect s co ns um er s o nl y whenthe sta ted am ount i s less than the a m ount r equi re d to be d isclosed ”) ( em p ha sis i n origi na l)
. I n r esp o ns e , the Bo nt e s r e pe a tthe mi s t a k e the y ma de in the dis t r ic t cou rt and essen tially i gn ore U
. S. Ba nk ’s8 N o. 09
- 2455
su b st an tiv e a rg u m en ts . In st ea d , th ey arg u e g en er ally that thei r com pla i nt pro perl y a l l ege d a TI LA vio lat i on a n d th a tth e di s t r i c tc o u r te r r o n e o u s l y h e l d th e i r c o mpla int t o a hi gherst andard than that e nvi si oned by Tw om b l y a nd i ts p rogen y. T he y also by and l arge ignore th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s ho l di ngo n wai ve r a nd s pen d the m aj or i ty ofthei r b ri efdi scussing the l iber alst andard to be appl i e d t o c o mpl a i n t s o n a mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s a n d the f act that TI LA i s t o be c onst rued l iber al l y in f avo r of consum er s. True as that m ay be, i t does l i ttl e to es ta bl i sh that the a l l ega ti ons i n th e Bonte s’ co m pla i nt ar e in f act enough “ to ra i se a r i ght t o re l i efabo ve the s pecula ti ve l eve l
. ” Tw om bly, 550 U .S. at 5 55 . U .S. B an k h as co ge n tly e x p l a i n e d w h y, t a k i n ga l l o fth e a l l e g a t i o n s i n th e c o mpla i nt as tr ue, the Bontes have failed to dem onst ra te th e i r e n t i t l e me n tt o r e s c i s s i o n u n d e r T I L A. The Bo nt es in si sttha t th ei r c o m pl ainti s su ffi ci en t be caus e i t l ay s o utwi ths pec i fi ci ty“ te n mat er i ala nd su bs ta nt i ale r r o r s i n Le nde r ’ s TI LA di sc l o su r e o fthe am ou n t fin an c ed , th e fin an c e c h ar ge , an d th e a p p lica b le A PR
. ” B ut as de tailed a b o v e, non e of th e ten errors are i n f act re l ate d to the a m ount fi na n c ed , the fi nance ch ar g e, a nd the a ppl i cabl e APR, no twi th st an di ngthe Bontes’ unsupp or ted l ega l stat em ent t o the c ontr ar y. A lthoughwe ar e r equi r ed atthi s st ag e to a cc eptthe Bo nt es ’ f actua l a l l eg at i o ns a s tr ue , we ar e no t “ ‘ bo und to accept as tr ue a l ega l co nclusi on co uched as a f actual al l ega ti on. ’ ” Id. (q u oting P apa san v. Allain , 47 8 U.S
. 26 5, 28 6 (1 98 6)); s e eal s o Iq b al , 12 9 S
. Ct. at19 49 (“ [T ]he te net th ata c o ur t m us t ac ce pt as t r ue al l o fthe a l l eg at i o ns co nt aine d i n a c o m pl ainti s i na ppl i cable t o l eg alc o nc l usions.”).N o. 09
- 2455 9 I ns te ad o fr es po ndi ngt o U. S
. Ba nk ’ s ar g um en ts a nd e xp l a i ningh o w a s i ng l e c ha r g e i n the i r c o mpl a i nt d o es re l ate to the cos t o fcr ed it, the Bonte s co nti nue to prot estthatthei r al l ega ti on o fte n d iscr epanci es between the H U D-1 set tl em ent stat em ent and the TILA di scl osur es am ounts to a s atis f acto ry“s hor t a nd pl ai n sta tem ent o f the c l ai m , ” F ed . R . Ci v. P. 8( a) ( 2) , sho w i ng the i r enti tl em en t to r el i ef
. Nots o . U. S
. Ba nkha s ex pl ai ne d th at th e f acts al l ege d, tak en as tr ue, si m plydo not g ive ri se to a ri ght to re sc issi on
— th e o n l y r e l i e fr e q u e s t e d i n th e c o mpl aint . Thu s, the l ibe r alc o ns tr uct i o n o fTI LA tha t th e B on tes urg e ca nnot s ave them fro m thei r f ai l ure to r es pond t o U. S
. Ba nkwi tha n a r g um en t th atthe com pla i n t d oes i nd eed support thei r enti tl em ent t o re lief. Se eSegal v. Ge i s ha NY C, LL C, 51 7 F
. 3d 501, 50 4 ( 7th Cir
. 2008 ) ( “[ I ] t i s . . . cl ear that a com plain t t h at sati sfi es Rul e 8( a) ’ s pl ea di ngr equi r ement s m i g hts ti l l war r an t dism i ssal u n der Rul e 1 2( b) ( 6) i fthe f acts pl ed cannot resu lt in an y plau sible reli ef. ”). As e xpl aine d b y the S upr eme Co ur t i n Iq b al , w e fol l ow a t w o- pronge d a p p ro ach i n ass ess i ng the suffi ci ency of a co m pl aint . F i r st, we co ns i derw hethe r the c o m pl aint co nt ai ns a n a dequa te “ sh o r t an d pl ain s ta te m en t o fthe cl ai m sho w i ng tha t the pl eaderi s e nti tl ed to r elief, ” a s r eq u ire d by R u le 8 (a)( 2). Iq b al , 1 2 9 S
. C t . a t 1 9 4 9
. As th e B o n t e s a r g u e v i g o r o u s l y o n a p p e a l, th e i r c o mpla i nt sa tisfi es thi s s tandard. I t l ays o ut the al l ege d disc r e p a n c i e s b e t we e n th e HUD
- 1 s e t t l e me n ts t a t e me nt and the T ILA di scl osur es, and then l abel s them m i sst ate
m en ts ofthe A PR, am ount fi nanced, and fi nance charg e

— er r o r s th atwoul d i n the o r y b e m at er i ala nd10 N o. 09
- 2455 suppo r t en ti tl ementt o r es ci ss i o n. On i ts f ac e, i t app ears t o be a p lau sib le e n ou gh th eo ry . SeeTw om bly, 550 U
. S. at5 70 ( “[ W ] e do not re qui r e he i g ht en ed f ac t pl ea di ng ofspeci fi cs, but onl y e nough f act s to state a cl ai m to reli ef that is plau sible on its face.”)
. Se condl y, wh en the co m pla i nt co ntai ns well

- ple aded f actualall ega ti ons, “a co urt shoul d assum e thei r ver aci ty and then de ter m i ne wh ethertheypl ausibl y g i ve ri se t o a n e nt i t l e men t t o r el i ef
. ” Iq b al , 129 S. C t. at 19 50 . A s it i s no w abundantl y clea r, i t hi s her e that the Bontes ’ co m pl aintf al l s sh o r t. Ass um i ngthe tr uth o fe ac h o fthe ten all eged ly m isstated cha rges in the c om p lai nt, U
. S. B a n k l a y s o ut w hy the Bontes st i l l ar e no t e nti tl ed to rescission. Th e sil en ce resu lti ng from the B on tes’ fai lure to fi l e a r esponse br i efi s deafeni ng. That si l ence l eave s us to co n c lu d e, as di d the di str i ctc o ur t, tha t th e Bo nt es c o nc ede tha t th e ch ar g es i den

ti fi ed i n thei r com pla i nt ar e no t “ m ate rial ” di scl osur es that w ou ld w ar ra nt r esci ssi on under TI LA
. Fa i l ure to resp o nd t o a n a r g um en t

— as the Bo nt es ha ve do ne he re

— re su lts in w aiv er . SeeU nite d S ta tes v. Farris , 53 2 F. 3d 615, 61 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( “Fa rr i s f ai l ed to res p on d to the Gove rnm en t’s argum ent in a Repl y Bri ef, and accor dingl y, we fi nd thatF ar ri s wai ved hi s s uffi ci ency of t h e e vid en c e c h alle n ge [.]”); Wi l l i am s v. R E P Corp. , 302 F. 3d 660, 66 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) ( “Yet, gi ven a nother op p or tu n ity to ad d re ss th e e ffec t o f T ria l R u le 4 .4 in hi s r eply b rie f, M r . W i l l i ams a g ain i g no r ed th e i ss ue an d , i nd eed , f ail ed to respon d to RE P Intern ational’s w ai verar gum ent. U nd erthes e ci rcum sta nces, we m ustN o. 09
- 2455 11 hol d that M r. W i l l i am s has waive d any ar gum ent that Tri alRule 4. 4 would per m i t the exer ci se ofper sonal j uri sdic ti on o verREP In te rnat i onal
. ”)
. J ust a s the Bontes f ai l o n appeal to gr apple w i th t h e b asi s o fthe dist ri ct co ur t’ s dec i si o n, the y f ai l c o m pl et ely t o r es pond to the speci fi c ar gum en ts setf or th i n U
. S. Bank’ s br i efas to w h y t h eir co m p lain t fa ils to st at e a cla im for re lief. K irksey v. R. J
. Reynolds Tob ac co Co. , 16 8 F
. 3d 1039 , 10 42 ( 7th Cir
. 199 9) ( “I f[j ud ges ] ar e g i ven pl ausibl e r eas ons f or di smi ss i nga c o m pl aint, the y a r e no t g o i ngto do the p lai nt iff’ s research an d try to discover w he th er there m i ght b e s om ethi ng to sa y a gainst the defend an ts’ re aso n in g.” ); s e eal s o C o un ty of M cHen ry v . Ins . Co. of t he West, 43 8 F
. 3d 813, 81 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) (“ W hen pres ented w i th a m oti on t o dism i ss, the non- m ovin g party m ust p ro fferso m e l ega l bas i s t o supp or t hi s ca use o f action
. ”) ( intern al quo tations om itted ). As t o the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s si m i l arc o nc l us i o n tha t th e Bontes conceded the v al i dity o fU
. S. Bank’ s a rgum ents by f ai l i ng to r espond, theyhave yet aga i n prov i ded pr e c i o us l i ttl e in the wa y o fa r g ume nt . T he Bo nt e s do ass er t in thei r b rie f that thei r re sponse i n the dist ri ct court to U
. S. Bank’ s m oti on t o dism i ss w as not tanta
m ount t o w ai ver . S peci fi cal l y, th e B onte s cl ai m that b ecause they“o pp ose d the l ender’ s m oti on f ordi sm i ssa l, and i denti fi ed f orthe l ower co urt the f actualand l ega l basi s f orthei r cl ai m f orTI LA r esci ssi on, ” th eir r esponse “d id n o t c on st itu te a ‘w aiv er ’ by an y s tr et c h of th e im ag inati on. ” But theyse em t o h ave aga i n m i sse d the poi nt: id en tify in g t h e “ fac tu al a n d l eg al b as is” of th eir cla im do es l i tt l e t o s av e th em f r o m di smi ss alwhenU. S
. Ba nk12 N o. 09
- 2455 has pai nstak i ngl y e xplai n ed p re ci sel y why that f actual b a s i s , t a k e n a s t r ue , do e s no t i n f a c t wa r r a ntthe re qu ested rel ief
. I n su m , the Bontes have l ar gel y f ai l ed on a pp ealto gr apple w i th the basi s of the dist ri ct cou rt ’s d eci si on
— thei r w aive r re sul ti ng fro m thei r f ai l ure to re spond to t h e m e r i t s o fU
. S
. B a n k ’ s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s . M o r e i mpo r t a nt l y, the y h a v e r e pe a t e d tha tf a i l ur e a g a i n o n a ppeal
. Thei r fail ure to re spond to U
. S. Bank’ s a rgum ents l ea ds us a l so to co nc l ude tha t th eyha ve wai ve d a ny ar gum ent that th e al l ege dlyer ro neous TI LA di scl osur es ar e in f act “m at er ial. ” Thi s l eave s us no cho i ce b ut to ac ce pt U. S
. Ba nk ’ s as se r ti o ns

— su p p orted as they are by pertinent l ega l autho ri ty

— th atthe a l l eg at i o ns i n the B ont es’ com p lai nt do n ot ent itl e the m to rel ief
.
III. Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons , w e A FFIRM the j ud gm ent o f the di str i ct c ourtdism i ssi ng the Bontes ’ co m pla i nt f or f a i l ur e t o s t a t e a c l a i m up o n whi c h r e l i e fma y b e g r a nt e d.

10- 19- 10