Watts v. Wells Fargo Dealer Services Inc

Filing 34

MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Chief Judge Karon O Bowdre on 7/20/16. (SAC )

FILED
2016 Jul-20 AM 10:10
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION
ROGER W. WATTS, JR,

]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

Plaintiff,
v.
WELLS FARGO DEALER
SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant.

Case No.: 4:15-cv-02250-KOB

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the court on pro se Plaintiff Roger Watts, Jr.'s "Motion to Dismiss
Verified Counterclaim for Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction and Damages" (doc. 29);
"Motion for Summary Judgment" (doc. 30); and "Motion to Strike Amended Answer to Verified
Complaint" (doc. 31). Watts filed each of these Motions on July 5, 2016. Defendant Wells Fargo
Dealer Services responded in Opposition to Watts's Motion to Dismiss and Watts' Motion to
Strike on July 8, 2016. (Docs. 32 & 33).
For the reasons set out in this Memorandum Opinion, the court DENIES each of Watts’s
Motions.
I.

Motion to Dismiss Verified Counterclaim for Restraining Order, Preliminary
Injunction and Damages
First, the court will address Watts’s Motion to Dismiss the Defendant’s Verified

Counterclaim for Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction and Damages (doc. 29). The court is
uncertain of whether Watts intended for this Motion to apply to Wells Fargo's Counterclaim that

1

was filed on June 23, 2016 (doc. 24), which has now been stricken, or to Wells Fargo's
Counterclaim that was refiled as part of its Amended Answer on June 30, 2016 (doc. 28).
However, the court finds that, regardless of Watts’s intent, his Motion to Dismiss is due to be
denied.
To the extent that Watts intended to ask the court to dismiss Wells Fargo's Counterclaim
that was filed on June 23, 2016 (doc. 24), the court will DENY Watts's Motion as MOOT. After
finding that Wells Fargo had failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and had
improperly filed its Counterclaim, the court sua sponte struck Wells Fargo’s Counterclaim. (See
Doc. 25). Therefore, this filing is no longer at issue.
Next, to the extent that Watts intended to ask the court to dismiss Well Fargo's
Counterclaim that was refiled as part of its Amended Answer on June 30, 2016 (doc. 28), the
court DENIES Watts's Motion as meritless. Watts did not state that he was relying on any
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure in his Motion; however, assuming arguendo that Watts intended
to move for dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the court can find no
basis for dismissal.
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss attacks the legal sufficiency of a pleading. The United
States Supreme Court has explained that “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a [pleading] must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting and explaining its decision in Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
In his Motion to Dismiss, Watts does not argue that Wells Fargo failed to sufficiently
plead its claims. Rather, Watts challenges the merits of Wells Fargo’s claims, arguing that he,
2

rather than Wells Fargo, “is substantially likely to prevail on this claim for possession of the
Vehicle.” (Doc. 29, at 3).
A plaintiff, however, cannot use a motion to dismiss to challenge the veracity of the facts
alleged in the pleading. See, e.g., Stiller v. Sumter Bank & Trust Co., 860 F. Supp. 835, 837
(M.D. Ga 1994) (“The purpose of the motion to dismiss is not to challenge the factual
allegations, but only to test the legal feasibility of the complaint.”). Accordingly, Watts’s factual
challenges to Wells’ Fargo’s Counterclaim are not a basis for dismissal.
Watts additionally argues that Wells Fargo has no standing to assert its Counterclaims.
This argument appears to be based on Watts’s mistaken belief that a party’s attorneys cannot file
pleadings on behalf of their clients. As the court has previously stated, attorneys may properly
file pleadings and motions on behalf of their clients. Thus, Watts’s standing argument also lacks
merit.
Therefore, the court will DENY Watts’s Motion to Dismiss Wells Fargo’s Counterclaim.
II.

Motion for Summary Judgment
Next, the court will address Watts’s Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 30). The court

finds that Watts’ Motion for Summary Judgment is due to be denied for two reasons.
First, Watts’s Motion for Summary Judgment is premature. The deadline for completion
of discovery in this case is still over two months away – on September 30, 2016. The case is not
yet ripe for summary judgment.
Second, Watts has failed to identify the basis for his Motion or to support his Motion with
evidence. The moving party “always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court
of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers
3

to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,’ which it believes
demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 323 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56).
Because Watts has failed to meet this standard, the court will DENY WITHOUT
PREJUDICE Watts’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
III.

Motion to Strike Amended Answer to Verified Complaint
Finally, the court will consider Watts’s Motion to Strike Wells Fargo’s Amended Answer

(doc. 31).
In his Motion, Watts repeatedly states, “Attorney attempting to testify for client that’s not
on the record.” (Doc. 31). As explained above, attorneys may file pleadings and motions on
behalf of their clients. The fact that an attorney filed a pleading on behalf of her client is not a
basis for striking that pleading.
Wells Fargo complied with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in filing its Amended
Answer. It moved for leave to file an Amended Answer, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15(a)(2). Then, when the court granted that Motion, Wells Fargo filed its Amended
Answer. No basis exists for striking Wells Fargo’s Amended Complaint.
Accordingly, the court will also DENY Watts’s Motion to Strike.
IV.

Conclusion
For the reasons set out in this Opinion, the court will DENY Watts’s Motion to Dismiss,

Motion for Summary Judgment, and Motion to Strike.

4

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a)(4)(A)1, the court ORDERS Watts to
file an Answer to Wells Fargo’s Counterclaim within 14 days of this Order. Watts’s Answer
should comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b), which requires that “[i]n responding to
a pleading, a party must: (A) state in short and plain terms its defenses to each claim asserted
against it; and (B) admit or deny the allegations asserted against by an opposing party.”
The court will enter a separate Order along with this Opinion.
DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of July, 2016.

____________________________________
KARON OWEN BOWDRE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a)(4)(A) provides that “if the court denies the
motion or postpones its disposition until trial, the responsive pleading must be served within 14
days after notice of the court’s action.”
5