Miller v. Stuart, No. 25-30190 (Nov. 13, 2025)

Case details
Full caption
Robbin Y. Miller v. Andrew Stuart
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
Nov. 13, 2025
Disposition
Affirmed
Panel
Barksdale (Circuit Judge); Willett (Circuit Judge); Duncan (Circuit Judge)
Opinion
Per curiam
© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.ROBBIN Y. MILLER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. ANDREW STUART,CEO; TD AUTO FINANCE, Defendants—Appellees.United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. | November 13, 2025 | Not Reported in Fed. Rptr. |2025 WL 3175977Document Detailsstandard Citation:ROBBIN Y. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANDREW STUART,CEO; TD AUTO FINANCE, Defendants-Appellees., No. 25-30190,2025 WL 3175977 (5th Cir. Nov. 13, 2025)All Citations:Not Reported in Fed. Rptr., 2025 WL 3175977Search DetailsSearch Query:adv: (openai "artificial intelligence" chatgpt "google gemini" "westlawcocounsel" "large language model") (hallucinat! fake fictitious spuriousnonexistent "non-existent" "made up" imagined /p (gpt ai "artificialintelligence" chatgpt chaton perplexity openai copilot "google gemini""google bard" grok "mata v. avianca" claude llm llms)) (hallucinat! fakefictitious spurious nonexistent "non-existent" "made up" imagined) +3(precedent case "legal authority" "legal case") & DATE(aft 1/1/2023)Jurisdiction:LouisianaDelivery DetailsDate:November 16, 2025 at 9:53 AMDelivered By: Client ID:NOCLIENTIDOutlineOpinion (p.1)All Citations (p.3)
ROBBIN Y. MILLER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. ANDREW..., Not Reported in Fed.... © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12025 WL 3175977Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.ROBBIN Y. MILLER,Plaintiff—Appellant,v.ANDREW STUART, CEO; TD AUTOFINANCE, Defendants—Appellees.No. 25-30190|Filed: 11/13/2025Editor's Note: This decision contains discussion ofcitation references that are incorrect or do not actuallyexist. These invalid citations appeared in the originalcourt opinion and have been preserved as written sincethey are part of the official record. Any links to theseinvalid citations have been removed.Appeal from the United States District Court forthe Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:24-CV-2890Before BARKSDALE, WILLETT, and DUNCAN,Circuit Judges.OpinionPER CURIAM:**1 Appellant Robbin Y. Miller, proceeding pro se,appeals the dismissal of her claims related to AppelleeTD Auto Finance's alleged failure to respond to herletter concerning outstanding debt on a car loan. WeAFFIRM.IIn March 2024, Celestine Green Dobbs executeda durable power of attorney naming her daughter,Robbin Y. Miller, as her agent and granting Miller“full and unlimited power and authority” for allbusiness and financial matters.1 Following Dobbs'sdeath, Miller received ownership and possession ofDobbs's property, including a 2024 GMC Denalipickup truck (the “Vehicle”) Dobbs had bought in May2024. The Vehicle's purchase was directly financed bythe car dealership and indirectly financed by TD AutoFinance (“TD”). This case centers around the financingagreement for the Vehicle (the “Contract”).On July 30, 2024, pursuant to her authority as Dobbs'sagent, Miller sent TD a letter regarding the Contract.The letter, entitled “Request for Accounting! [sic],”declared Miller's “right to an authenticated record ofaccounting” for the Vehicle. Contradictorily, however,the letter also asserted that Miller was “not requestinga statement of account, [sic] for an authenticatedrecord of the accounting.” Rather, Miller clarifiedshe was “hereby disputing the alleged debt” andrequested that TD send her within “14 calendar-days” an “authenticated record” with the “originalPromissory note with a wet signature, all tax filings ...[,] any and all trades and/or investments and/or securityinterests associated with this account[.]” If TD failedto do so, Miller asserted she would “BE [sic] assessinga $1,000 per day penalty ... and/or $10,000 per month,whichever is greatest.”When TD did not respond to the letter, Miller suedTD in federal district court, asserting claims for (1) aviolation of Louisiana Revised Statute § 10:9-210, (2)negligence per se, and (3) breach of good faith andfair dealing.2 Because Miller was proceeding pro se,the district court liberally construed her complaint butultimately dismissed it in its entirety under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.Miller now appeals.IIWe review a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal de novo. Petersenv. Johnson, 57 F.4th 225, 231 (5th Cir. 2023). We willaffirm if the plaintiff has failed to “plead[ ] factualcontent that allows the court to draw the reasonableinference that the defendant is liable for the misconductalleged.” Alexander v. Philip R. Taft Psy D & Assocs.,P.L.L.C., 143 F.4th 569, 578 (5th Cir. 2025) (quotingAshcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). While“ ‘detailed factual allegations’ ” are not required, thecomplaint must contain more than “speculative or
ROBBIN Y. MILLER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. ANDREW..., Not Reported in Fed.... © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2conclusory statements of fact.” Id. (quoting Cicalese v.Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch, 924 F.3d 762, 765 (5th Cir.2019)).*2 In this diversity case, we apply Louisianasubstantive law and federal procedural law. SeeGasperini v. Ctr. for Humans., Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 427(1996) (citing Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64,78 (1938)).IIIAMiller first argues that the district court improperlydismissed her § 10:9-210 claim. That statute requires a“secured party, other than a buyer of ... chattel paper”to respond to a “request for an accounting” within 14days of receipt. LA. STAT. ANN. § 10:9-210(b). A“request for an accounting” is a record “requestingthat the recipient provide an accounting of the unpaidobligations secured by collateral.” Id. § 10:9-210(a)(2). “Chattel paper” is “a right to payment of amonetary obligation secured by specific goods ...evidenced by a record.” Id. § 10:9-102(a)(11)(A).Miller alleged that TD violated § 10:9-210 by notresponding to her July 30 letter. TD moved todismiss that claim, arguing that, as a “buyer of chattelpaper,” it was exempted from the 14-day responserequirement. TD also argued that Miller's letter wasnot a “request for accounting” within the statute'smeaning because, in addition to denying it was seekinga record of accounting, the letter also contested theunderlying debt and demanded records outside thescope of an accounting. Miller's two-page responsedid not address or oppose these arguments, but merelyattached additional documents. Agreeing with TD'sunopposed arguments, the district court dismissedMiller's § 10:9-210 claim.On appeal, Miller contends the district court erredin “accepting an unpled ‘buyer of chattel paper’exemption.” We disagree. The Contract undisputedlyshows that TD has a right to payment of a monetaryobligation secured by the Vehicle. TD thereforefalls within the statutory exception for buyers ofchattel paper. See LA. STAT. ANN. §§ 10:9-210(b),10:9-102(a)(11)(A). The district court thus correctlydismissed Miller's claim as a matter of law.We also disagree with Miller's argument that thedistrict court “mischaracterize[ed] her authenticatedrequest as a debt dispute,” as opposed to a requestfor accounting. As the court correctly noted, Miller'sletter explicitly stated she was “not requesting astatement of account” or an “authenticated record ofthe accounting.” To the contrary, the letter plainlystated that Miller's actual intent was to “disput[e] thealleged debt” and to request information unrelated to arequest for accounting.For either reason, the district court correctly dismissedMiller's § 10:9-210 claim.BMiller's negligence per se claim was premised entirelyon TD's purported violation of § 10:9-210. For thesame reasons given above, then, the district courtproperly dismissed this claim.CMiller also argues the district court “premature[ly]”dismissed her breach of good faith and fair dealingclaim. She is wrong again. The court correctlyrejected Miller's argument, holding that Miller failedto “produce[ ] facts that prove TD Auto actuallyviolated” the Contract. Because Miller's breach-of-contract claim fails on the pleadings, her duty ofgood faith and fair dealing claim necessarily fails.Schaumburg v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 421 F.App'x 434, 439 (5th Cir. 2011) (“A breach of the dutyof good faith and fair dealing requires a breach of acontract.”) (citations omitted).IV*3 Finally, we must address Miller's citations tononexistent cases. The district court noted that the“bold” inaccuracies and misrepresentations in Miller'spleadings “raise[d] alarm.” Evidently undeterred,Miller's appellate brief references numerous cases that
ROBBIN Y. MILLER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. ANDREW..., Not Reported in Fed.... © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3do not match the citations she provides. And manyof her cited cases fail to support the propositions sheattributes to them.3While we afford pro se plaintiffs some leeway,see Jackson v. Reese, 608 F.2d 159, 160 (5th Cir.1979), we cannot ignore Miller's repeated use offictitious citations. Like attorneys, pro se litigants arebound by Rule 28 of the Federal Rules of AppellateProcedure, which requires all filed briefs to containarguments supported by “citations to the authorities.”FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8)(A); see also Garces v.Hernandez, No. 25-50342, 2025 WL 2401001, at*2 (5th Cir. Aug. 19, 2025) (noting that citingfabricated authorities may also violate Federal Rules ofAppellate Procedure 32 and 38). Flouting that bedrockrequirement is a serious matter. Future infractions mayresult in appropriate sanctions. See ibid. (“[F]rivolous,repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings can and willresult in sanctions ....”).We therefore decline to consider the arguments Millersupported with nonexistent cases.AFFIRMED.All CitationsNot Reported in Fed. Rptr., 2025 WL 3175977Footnotes*This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.1We draw all facts from allegations in Miller's complaint, which we accept as true for purposes of FederalRule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Sw. Airlines Pilots Ass'n v. Sw. Airlines Co., 120 F.4th 474, 482 (5th Cir.2024). We also consider documents referenced in her complaint and attached to the motion to dismiss. SeeSligh v. City of Conroe, 87 F.4th 290, 297–98 (5th Cir. 2023).2Miller also sued Andrew Stuart, TD's Chief Executive Officer. The district court dismissed Miller's claimsagainst Stuart because her complaint alleged nothing about him. Miller does not contest Stuart's dismissalon appeal.3For instance, Miller's citation to Succession of Faget does not appear at “838 So.2d 86 (La. App. 5 Cir.2003),” and although similarly named cases exist, none supports the proposition Miller attributes to it.End of Document© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S.Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access