Pryor

BACKGROUND

It is impossible to determine the relevant factual or procedural background from the record presented. For example, the apparently operative second amended complaint does not appear in the record, nor does any prior iteration of the complaint. From the briefs and the meager record, we discern that Pryor’s second amended complaint stated causes of action for (1) fraud, (2) breach of contract, (3) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (4) usury, (5) cancellation of deeds of foreclosure, and (6) foreclosure of mechanic’s lien. Pryor claimed that, beginning in 2006, he began negotiating with Patel for a series of loans intended to finance several real estate development projects, and eventually entered into agreements documenting the loans. According to Pryor, defendants manipulated the loan disbursement process so as to encourage Pryor to default on the loans. As each real estate development neared completion, defendants refused to release any further loan proceeds and blocked Pryor’s attempts to refinance. They then recorded notices of default and initiated foreclosures, eventually acquiring title to each property. Pryor alleged he suffered $15,000,000…