Gregory Brian Myers v. U.S. Bank, 11th Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Naples Foreclosure Lawsuit

The Eleventh Circuit ruled against Gregory Brian Myers on October 19, 2026. It affirmed the dismissal of his amended complaint against U.S. Bank with prejudice and also affirmed the denial of his post-judgment motion. The lawsuit grew out of a foreclosure that began in 2009 and a 2016 bankruptcy-court consent order that Myers said the bank violated.

Quick Facts: Myers v. U.S. Bank National Association

Case detail	What the court record shows
Appellant (plaintiff)	Gregory Brian Myers, representing himself (pro se)
Appellees (defendants)	U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for the Credit Suisse First Boston CSFB 2005-11 mortgage-backed trust, and related Credit Suisse First Boston entities
Also sued in district court	DeLuca Law Group, PLLC, and four individuals (the individuals were dismissed for lack of service)
Court	U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (non-argument calendar)
Panel	Judges Abudu, Kidd and Anderson (per curiam opinion)
Appeal numbers	No. 25-12605 (appeal of the dismissal) and No. 25-13144 (appeal of the denial of post-judgment relief); the court consolidated them
Lower court	U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, No. 2:24-cv-00370-JES-KCD
Property	A residence in Naples, Florida
Claims in the amended complaint	Breach of contract, constructive fraud, and a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) violation
Decision date	October 19, 2026
Outcome	Dismissal with prejudice affirmed; denial of post-judgment relief affirmed
Publication status	“Not for publication” (unpublished, not binding precedent)
Case type	Individual lawsuit. Not a class action, and no settlement or claim program

This is a one-person dispute over a mortgage and a court order. It is not a class action, and it does not create a refund, payout or claim process for other U.S. Bank customers.

What Is the Gregory Myers v. U.S. Bank Lawsuit About?

The case centers on a home in Naples, Florida, where Myers lives. His wife, Barbara Ann Kelly, bought the property with a mortgage and later conveyed it to herself and Myers. U.S. Bank National Association, acting as trustee for the Credit Suisse First Boston CSFB 2005-11 trust, holds that mortgage.

In 2009, U.S. Bank filed a foreclosure action against Kelly and Myers in Florida state court (U.S. Bank National Association v. Kelly, No. 11-2009-CA-010813). The state court entered a final judgment of foreclosure for the bank, finding that the borrowers had missed 66 monthly mortgage payments.

Kelly and Myers appealed. While the appeals were pending, Myers filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland (In re Myers, No. 15-26033). That filing triggered an automatic stay, which is why a 2016 consent order became part of the story.

The case in front of the Eleventh Circuit was not the foreclosure itself. It was a later federal lawsuit, filed in 2024, in which Myers argued that the bank’s attempt to reset a foreclosure sale broke the consent order and amounted to fraud. The Eleventh Circuit reviewed only whether that lawsuit was properly dismissed. It did not reopen the foreclosure judgment.

Timeline of the Myers v. U.S. Bank Foreclosure and Federal Lawsuit

Date	Event
2009	U.S. Bank files a foreclosure action against Kelly and Myers in Florida state court
After 2009	State court enters final foreclosure judgment, finding 66 missed monthly payments; Kelly and Myers appeal
During the state appeals	Myers files Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the District of Maryland
November 14, 2016	Maryland bankruptcy court enters the consent order
2018	Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal affirms the foreclosure judgment (Myers v. U.S. Bank National Association, 255 So. 3d 283)
2024	Myers sues U.S. Bank, DeLuca Law Group, PLLC and four individuals in the Middle District of Florida
After the first complaint	District court dismisses the first complaint without prejudice as a shotgun pleading; Myers files an amended complaint
After U.S. Bank moves to dismiss	Myers files a new bankruptcy case in the District of Columbia and asks the district court to stay his suit; the court refuses
Later	District court dismisses the amended complaint with prejudice and later denies Myers’ post-judgment motion
October 19, 2026	Eleventh Circuit affirms both rulings

The 2018 Florida appellate decision ended the state-court appeals. The 2024 federal lawsuit came afterward, when Myers objected to the bank’s efforts to move toward a sale.

What Did the November 2016 Consent Order Say?

The consent order is the document the whole breach-of-contract claim depended on, so its terms matter.

When Myers filed for bankruptcy, the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) generally halted collection and foreclosure actions against him. U.S. Bank asked the Maryland bankruptcy court to modify the stay so the state appeals could go forward and so the bank could sell the property if the foreclosure judgment was affirmed. Myers and the bank reached an agreement, and the bankruptcy court entered it as a consent order on November 14, 2016.

In relevant part, the order did the following:

• Let the state appeals proceed. Both the Myers appeal and the Kelly appeal could continue despite the automatic stay.
• Required monthly protection payments. Myers had to deposit $5,000 a month into the Maryland court registry until the state appeals were resolved. Myers claims he deposited $70,000. The Eleventh Circuit described that figure as his claim and did not verify it.
• Decided who gets the registry funds. If the state appellate court affirmed the foreclosure, U.S. Bank was entitled to receive the money in the registry, and it had to credit that amount against any debt it collected from Myers or Kelly.
• Paused the foreclosure sale, for a defined period. The sale was halted “unless and until the Myers Appeal and the Kelly Appeal have been fully and finally resolved in favor of U.S. Bank.”

That last clause is the important one. As the district court read it, the order was not a promise to stop foreclosing forever. It set a condition, and the state appeals ended in the bank’s favor in 2018.

One caution on reading the ruling. The Eleventh Circuit did not issue a full ruling on what the consent order means. It said the district court dismissed the contract claim because of how the amended complaint was written, not because of the court’s own interpretation of the order. That distinction comes up again below.

Related article: Six Flags Meal Plan Lawsuit 2026? Dining Plan Refund Delays, Eligibility and Legal Rights

Why Did Gregory Myers Sue U.S. Bank in Federal Court in 2024?

In 2024, Myers sued U.S. Bank, DeLuca Law Group, PLLC and four individuals in the Middle District of Florida. He claimed that by “attempting to re-set a foreclosure sale of the Naples Property,” the defendants committed constructive fraud and violated his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He also alleged that the defendants breached the consent order.

The district court dismissed the four individual defendants because Myers never served them with process. It then dismissed the rest of the complaint without prejudice, for two reasons:

• Shotgun pleading. The complaint did not say which defendant was responsible for which act or omission. A shotgun pleading is one that lumps defendants and claims together so that no one can tell who is accused of what.
• No state action under § 1983. Section 1983 reaches people acting under color of state law. Myers did not allege that the defendants were doing so.

Myers was allowed to amend. His amended complaint named eight different U.S. Bank entities, which he labeled “US Bank #1” through “US Bank #8,” plus Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Acceptance Corp. It asserted three claims against all defendants: breach of contract, constructive fraud, and an FDCPA violation under 15 U.S.C. § 1692. Even so, Myers alleged that only “US Bank #5” breached the consent order.

U.S. Bank moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.

What Is the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, and Why Did It Come Up in the Myers Case?

U.S. Bank argued that Myers was “a state court loser trying to relitigate his foreclosure action.” That is a reference to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which generally keeps lower federal courts from sitting as appeals courts for state-court judgments. The doctrine comes from two U.S. Supreme Court cases, Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983), and was narrowed in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005).

The district court rejected the argument. It reasoned that Myers’ claims arose from the consent order, not from the state foreclosure judgment, so Rooker-Feldman did not apply. The Eleventh Circuit’s opinion does not revisit that point. The takeaway is simple: the federal court treated this as a fight over the consent order, not as a second attempt to undo the state foreclosure.

Why Did the Court Dismiss Myers’ Breach-of-Contract Claim?

The breach-of-contract claim was the only claim the Eleventh Circuit examined on the merits, because Myers abandoned his appeal of the other two (covered below).

Myers argued that the district court “overshot Rule 12” by engaging in “merits reasoning,” meaning it improperly decided that the facts he alleged were contradicted by the consent order. The Eleventh Circuit disagreed: “Not so.” It explained that the dismissal rested on the allegations in the amended complaint, not on the court’s interpretation of the consent order.

The district court had called the claim “simply a barebones conclusory recitation of the elements for a breach.” The Eleventh Circuit agreed. Myers had alleged that U.S. Bank “denied” him “the benefit of his bargain” and that he “suffered damages.” The appeals court held those statements were not enough, citing its earlier rule that “legal conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal” (Oxford Asset Management, Ltd. v. Jaharis, 297 F.3d 1182, 1188 (11th Cir. 2002)).

What a complaint has to include to survive a motion to dismiss

Under Rule 8(a), a complaint needs a short and plain statement showing the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The Supreme Court has held that this requires enough factual detail to make a claim plausible, not just labels and conclusions (Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)). For a contract claim, that generally means identifying the agreement, the specific obligation, how the defendant failed to meet it, and the resulting harm.

Myers’ amended complaint did not do that. It recited the idea of a breach without explaining which term was broken or how.

Did the 11th Circuit say U.S. Bank could never breach the consent order?

No. The panel did not hold that the consent order was impossible to breach, and it did not decide that every part of the bank’s later conduct was lawful. The ruling is about a complaint that did not plead enough facts. A well-pleaded claim about a court order could be a different case.

What Happened to the Constructive Fraud Claim Against U.S. Bank?

Constructive fraud is a theory that treats certain conduct as fraudulent because of the relationship between the parties or the circumstances, even when intent to deceive is not shown. The district court dismissed this claim because Myers did not allege a confidential or fiduciary relationship with U.S. Bank.

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit found that Myers had abandoned his challenge to this ruling. Under its precedent, an appellant abandons an issue that he fails to “plainly and prominently” raise (Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Insurance Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014)), and even pro se litigants lose issues they do not brief (Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008)).

The court then added that it would have affirmed anyway. Myers “did not allege facts supporting his claims of fraud or the existence of a confidential or fiduciary relationship between the parties.”

The dismissal stands. The court did not find that U.S. Bank committed fraud of any kind.

For readers following how courts treat misleading-conduct claims against mortgage servicers, see PHH Mortgage Reverse Mortgage Class Action Lawsuit 2026, which covers a separate case with different parties and allegations.

Why Did the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Claim Against U.S. Bank Fail?

The FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 and following sections, restricts abusive, deceptive and unfair practices by covered debt collectors. It does not automatically apply to every foreclosure or mortgage dispute. Coverage depends on whether the defendant is a “debt collector” as the statute defines the term (see 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) and Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 582 U.S. 79 (2017)), and on what the defendant actually did.

The district court dismissed the FDCPA claim for two reasons:

1. No facts. The amended complaint contained no factual allegations describing how U.S. Bank violated the Act.
2. Too late. The claim was “clearly untimely” because it fell outside the Act’s one-year statute of limitations. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d), an FDCPA action generally must be brought within one year from the date of the violation.

Myers abandoned his appeal of this ruling too. The Eleventh Circuit still said that, even if he had preserved the issue, “the district court correctly concluded that the statute of limitations on Myers’s FDCPA claim had run.”

So the FDCPA claim was never revived, and no court has found that U.S. Bank violated federal debt-collection law in this case.

Why Was the Lawsuit Dismissed With Prejudice Instead of Letting Myers Amend Again?

A dismissal with prejudice generally means the claims cannot be refiled as a new lawsuit. Myers argued the district court should have let him amend again because it had acknowledged he had more facts to offer. The Eleventh Circuit rejected that for three reasons.

He already got his amendment. Under Rule 15(a)(2), courts should “freely give leave to amend when justice so requires.” The Eleventh Circuit also requires a district court to give a pro se party at least one chance to amend before dismissing with prejudice (Woldeab v. DeKalb County Board of Education, 885 F.3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir. 2018)). Myers received that chance. The court said the liberal amendment standard “is not an unqualified license to fix every new defect as the court uncovers them” (In re Engle Cases, 767 F.3d 1082, 1123 (11th Cir. 2014)), and described the denial as refusing a “third bite at the apple.”

Facts in a brief do not count. After U.S. Bank moved to dismiss, Myers’ opposition included facts that were not in the amended complaint. On a motion to dismiss, a court’s review “is limited to the four corners of the complaint” (Wilchombe v. Teevee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 959 (11th Cir. 2009)). The dismissal was proper “irrespective of the facts alleged in Myers’s opposition.”

Further amendment would have been futile, according to the district court. It reasoned that even with the opposition’s extra facts, the contract claim would still fail, because the consent order was not an agreement to stop the foreclosure forever.

What the standards of review were

The Eleventh Circuit applied different standards to different rulings: de novo review for the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and for the futility determination, and abuse of discretion for the decision to dismiss with prejudice and for the denial of post-judgment relief. For anyone who wants to understand the legal framework, that is why the panel gave the district court less deference on whether the complaint stated a claim and more on its case-management decisions.

Did the Automatic Bankruptcy Stay Freeze Myers’ Federal Lawsuit?

After U.S. Bank moved to dismiss, Myers filed a new bankruptcy case in the District of Columbia and asked the district court to stay his lawsuit under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). The district court refused, reasoning that the automatic stay did not apply because Myers had started the case.

On the same day he appealed the dismissal, Myers filed a motion under Rule 59(e) arguing that his suit should have been stayed and that the district court’s judgment was therefore “void ab initio.” The district court treated it as a Rule 60(b) motion because the time for a Rule 59 motion had passed (Rule 59(e) motions must be filed within 28 days of the judgment), and denied it.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. It made two points:

• The district court still had jurisdiction. A court keeps the power to rule on a Rule 60(b) motion even after a notice of appeal has been filed (Mahone v. Ray, 326 F.3d 1176, 1180 (11th Cir. 2003)).
• The stay did not apply. The automatic stay applies to actions against the debtor, and Myers brought this suit himself (11 U.S.C. § 362; Crosby v. Monroe County, 394 F.3d 1328, 1331 n.2 (11th Cir. 2004)).

The result is not that bankruptcy never affects litigation. The stay protects debtors from many actions taken against them, and it can matter for estate property. It does not, by itself, pause a lawsuit a debtor files against someone else, and it does not let a debtor avoid a dismissal of his own deficient complaint.

Did the Court Err by Treating the “US Bank #1” Through “#8” Entities as One Defendant?

Myers argued that the district court wrongly referred to the different U.S. Bank entities he had named as a single defendant, and that this changed the analysis. U.S. Bank responded that the entities were “one and the same” and pointed out that Myers had asked for only one summons.

The Eleventh Circuit found no error. Myers “failed to articulate how the district court’s treatment of U.S. Bank as one entity altered the substance of the court’s analysis or how the distinction between these entities carries any significance.” The ruling is specific to this complaint and these arguments. It does not mean related banks, trustees and subsidiaries are interchangeable in other disputes.

What Did the 11th Circuit Not Decide in Myers v. U.S. Bank?

Because the case has been misread in some summaries, here is what the opinion does not do:

• It does not reopen or reverse the 2009 foreclosure judgment or the 2018 Florida appellate decision.
• It does not decide how much Myers owes or how the registry funds should be applied.
• It does not award money to U.S. Bank, and it does not award money to Myers.
• It does not set a new rule that bankruptcy consent orders expire in every case. It rests on this complaint and on the district court’s reading of this order.
• It does not find that U.S. Bank committed fraud or violated the FDCPA.
• It is not a class action, and no settlement, claim form or deadline exists.

Is the Myers Ruling Binding Precedent?

No. The opinion is marked “NOT FOR PUBLICATION.” Under Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2, unpublished opinions are not binding precedent, though they may be cited as persuasive authority (see also Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1). The panel was applying settled standards, not creating new law.

That matters for anyone searching for the “key precedent” from this case. The principles in the opinion, such as the pleading standard and the rule that the automatic stay does not apply to a debtor’s own lawsuit, come from earlier published decisions that the panel cited.

What Does the Myers v. U.S. Bank Decision Mean for Other Borrowers?

Nothing in this ruling gives other borrowers a claim, but it does illustrate five practical points that come up in foreclosure and mortgage litigation.

1. Plead facts, not conclusions. Saying a lender “denied the benefit of the bargain” without identifying the term and the conduct is not enough.
2. Read the order carefully. A restraint tied to the end of appeals ends when the appeals do. Whether a later act breaks the order depends on its exact wording.
3. Know the FDCPA’s limits. The statute has a one-year filing deadline, and it covers only defendants and conduct that fit the statute’s definitions.
4. Raise every issue on appeal. An issue that is not “plainly and prominently” briefed is treated as abandoned, even for a pro se litigant.
5. Do not assume bankruptcy pauses everything. The automatic stay protects against actions taken against the debtor, not the debtor’s own lawsuits.

This is general legal information, not advice about any particular loan or case. Anyone facing foreclosure or a dispute over a court order should speak with a licensed attorney in their state, because deadlines in this area are short.

For a different mortgage-related debt-collection matter with its own facts and parties, see PHH Mortgage $1.5M Settlement, Nearly 96,000 Homeowners May Be Owed Cash Here Is How to Claim Yours. It has no connection to Myers’ lawsuit.

Is There a Gregory Myers v. U.S. Bank Class Action or Settlement?

No. The opinion describes an individual lawsuit by one plaintiff. No class was certified or proposed, and the court did not mention a settlement fund, a claims administrator or a payment program. Because there is no class action, there is no claim form and no deadline. People who see headlines about this case and wonder whether they are owed money from U.S. Bank should know that this ruling does not create that right.

Frequently Asked Questions About Myers v. U.S. Bank

What is the Gregory Brian Myers v. U.S. Bank lawsuit?

It is an individual federal lawsuit tied to a Naples, Florida foreclosure. Myers claimed that U.S. Bank’s efforts to reset a foreclosure sale breached a 2016 bankruptcy consent order, and that the conduct was constructive fraud and violated the FDCPA.

Did Gregory Myers win his appeal against U.S. Bank?

No. On October 19, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of his amended complaint with prejudice and affirmed the denial of his post-judgment motion.

Why did the court dismiss Myers’ lawsuit against U.S. Bank?

The contract claim was “a barebones conclusory recitation of the elements for a breach,” in the words of the district court, which the Eleventh Circuit agreed with. Myers abandoned his appeal of the constructive fraud and FDCPA rulings, and the court said it would have affirmed those anyway.

Did the court find that U.S. Bank committed fraud?

No. The constructive fraud claim was dismissed because Myers did not allege facts supporting fraud or a confidential or fiduciary relationship. The Eleventh Circuit left that dismissal in place.

Did U.S. Bank violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act?

The court made no such finding. The FDCPA claim was dismissed because the amended complaint contained no supporting facts and because it was filed after the one-year limitations period in 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d).

What was the 2016 consent order in Myers’ bankruptcy?

It was an agreement entered by the Maryland bankruptcy court on November 14, 2016. It allowed the state foreclosure appeals to continue despite the automatic stay, required Myers to deposit $5,000 a month into the court registry, and halted the foreclosure sale until the appeals were fully and finally resolved in U.S. Bank’s favor.

How much did Myers say he paid into the court registry?

Myers claims he deposited $70,000. The Eleventh Circuit reported this as his claim and did not independently confirm it or order that it be returned.

Does a new bankruptcy filing stop a lawsuit the debtor started?

Not automatically. The Eleventh Circuit held that the automatic stay applies to actions against the debtor, and Myers had started this lawsuit himself.

What does “dismissed with prejudice” mean?

It generally means the dismissed claims cannot simply be filed again in a new lawsuit. Here, the court affirmed that the amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice after Myers had already had one chance to amend.

Can a borrower sue over the violation of a bankruptcy consent order?

Possibly, depending on the order’s terms, the court’s jurisdiction, the facts and the available remedies. The Myers ruling does not say such claims are barred. It says a complaint must plead specific facts showing which obligation was breached and how.

Is the Myers v. U.S. Bank opinion binding on other courts?

No. It is an unpublished decision, which can be cited as persuasive authority but is not binding precedent under Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2.

Does this ruling affect other U.S. Bank customers?

No. It concerns only Myers’ own complaint. It does not create a class action, a refund program or a claim process.

The Bottom Line

The Eleventh Circuit’s October 19, 2026 opinion ends a federal lawsuit that grew out of a 17-year foreclosure fight. The panel held that Myers’ breach-of-contract allegations were too conclusory to state a claim, that his abandoned constructive-fraud and FDCPA arguments would not have succeeded anyway, that the district court acted within its discretion in dismissing with prejudice after one amendment, and that Myers’ later bankruptcy did not automatically stay a lawsuit he filed himself.

It does not decide that every foreclosure practice is lawful, and it does not set a new rule for other cases. It simply leaves the dismissal in place.

Primary Sources and Further Reading

1. Myers v. U.S. Bank National Association, Nos. 25-12605 and 25-13144 (11th Cir. Oct. 19, 2026) (unpublished), official Eleventh Circuit opinion.
2. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k, FDCPA civil liability and one-year limitations period.
3. 11 U.S.C. § 362, bankruptcy automatic stay.
4. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, amended and supplemental pleadings.
5. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12, defenses and motions to dismiss.
6. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, relief from a judgment or order.
7. Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2, unpublished opinions.

Update Log

Date	Update
October 23, 2026	Article published and verified against the official Eleventh Circuit opinion filed October 19, 2026

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the official Eleventh Circuit opinion in Nos. 25-12605 and 25-13144 and the primary statutes and rules cited above, as of October 23, 2026. Last Updated: October 23, 2026.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws vary by state and individual circumstances differ. For advice about your specific situation, consult a qualified attorney. AllAboutLawyer.com is a legal information website, not a law firm.