Hodo-Payne v. Blake et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE that plaintiff's motion for leave to amend her complaint is DENIED and both defendants' motions to dismiss are GRANTED, and all claims embraced herein are DISMISSED with prejudice; costs are taxed to plaintiff. Signed by Judge C Lynwood Smith, Jr on 7/15/2014. (AHI)
2014 Jul-15 AM 09:23
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
LISA ANN HODO-PAYNE,
JOSEPH MITCHELL BLAKE,
JR. and PFS INVESTMENTS,
Civil Action No. CV-14-S-767-NE
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Lisa Ann Hodo-Payne, who is proceeding pro se, filed this case on
April 24, 2014, asserting claims for wantonness, breach of fiduciary duty, consumer
fraud, misrepresentation, and mail fraud against defendants Joseph Mitchell Blake,
Jr., and PFS Investments, Inc.1 The case currently is before the court on separate
motions to dismiss filed by both defendants,2 and plaintiff’s motion for leave to
amend her complaint.3 Upon consideration of the motions, pleadings, and briefs, the
court concludes that both defendants’ motions to dismiss should be granted, and
plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend her complaint should be denied.
Doc. no. 1 (Complaint).
Doc. no. 9 (Motion to Dismiss by PFS Investments, Inc.); doc. no. 10 (Motion to Dismiss
by Joseph Mitchell Blake).
Doc. no. 12.
I. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
Motion to Dismiss
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) permits a party to move to dismiss a
complaint for, among other reasons, “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). This rule must be read together with Rule 8(a),
which requires that a pleading contain only a “short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). While that
pleading standard does not require “detailed factual allegations,” Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 550 (2007), it does demand “more than an unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (citations omitted). As the Supreme Court stated in Iqbal:
A pleading that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” [Twombly,
550 U.S., at 555]. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders “naked
assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual enhancement.” Id., at 557.
To survive a motion to dismiss [for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted], a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim for relief that is plausible on
its face.” Id., at 570. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id., at
556. The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,”
but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully. Ibid. Where a complaint pleads facts that are “merely
consistent with” a defendant’s liability, it “stops short of the line
between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’” Id., at
557 (brackets omitted).
Two working principles underlie our decision in Twombly. First,
the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained
in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals
of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice. Id., at 555 (Although for the purposes of a
motion to dismiss we must take all of the factual allegations in the
complaint as true, we “are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion
couched as a factual allegation” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Rule 8 marks a notable and generous departure from the hyper-technical,
code-pleading regime of a prior era, but it does not unlock the doors of
discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions.
Second, only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives
a motion to dismiss. Id., at 556. Determining whether a complaint
states a plausible claim for relief will, as the Court of Appeals observed,
be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on
its judicial experience and common sense. 490 F.3d, at 157-158. But
where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than
the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged — but it
has not “show[n]” — “that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. Rule
Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2).
In keeping with these principles a court considering a motion to
dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they
are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.
While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they
must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded
factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then
determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79 (emphasis added) (first and third alterations supplied,
second and fourth alterations in original).
Additionally, the Eleventh Circuit has observed that “a statute of limitations
defense may be raised on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which
relief can be granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), when the complaint shows on its
face that the limitations period has run.” AVCO Corp. v. Precision Air Parts, Inc.,
676 F.2d 494, 495 (11th Cir 1982).
“‘Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted
by attorneys’ and are liberally construed.” Bingham v. Thomas, 654 F.3d 1171, 1175
(11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th
Motion for Leave to Amend
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, addressing amended and supplemental
pleadings, states that a court should “freely give leave [to amend a pleading] when
justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (alteration supplied).
A district court need not, however, allow an amendment (1) where there
has been undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, or repeated failure to
cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed; (2) where
allowing amendment would cause undue prejudice to the opposing
party; or (3) where amendment would be futile. See Foman v. Davis, 371
U.S. 178, 182, 83 S. Ct. 227, 9 L. Ed.2d 222 (1962).
Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161, 1163 (11th Cir. 2001) (emphasis supplied).
II. ALLEGATIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Plaintiff’s original complaint consists of one “General Complaint Form for Pro
Se Litigants,”4 a separate document entitled “Complaint” that plaintiff drafted
herself,5 and several exhibits.6 On the pro se complaint form, plaintiff states:
The Defendant committed wantonness, breach of fiduciary duty,
consumer fraud[,] misrepresentation[,] and mail fraud by instructing the
Plaintiff Lisa A. Hodo Payne to sign but not to date a life insurance
application and self administer a HIV test as part of an insurance scam
to place the insurance application with other insurance companies
naming the Plaintiff as the insured and the Defendant as the beneficiary
to get a large sum of money upon the plaintiff Lisa A. Hodo Payne[’s]
As her request for relief, plaintiff states:
The Plaintiff files this statement of claim against Joseph M. Blake
Jr. [and] PFS Investment Inc. for wantoness [sic], consumer fraud,
misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty and United States mail fraud.
The Plaintiff prays for judgement against the Defendant for $500,000
in damages for paranoia, mental anguish, emotional distress, and
inability to compete in the workforce, loss of income and cost[s]
incurred herein and any other appropriate relief as the court may
Complaint, at ECF 1-4. “ECF” is the acronym for “Electronic Case Filing,” a system that
allows parties to file and serve documents electronically. See Atterbury v. Foulk, No. C-07-6256
MHP, 2009 WL 4723547, *6 n.6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2009). Bluebook Rule 7.1.4 permits citations
to the “page numbers generated by the ECF header.” Wilson v. Fullwood, 772 F. Supp. 2d 246, 257
n.5 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation R. B. 7.1.4, at 21 (Columbia
Law Review Ass’n et al., 19th ed. 2010)). Even so, the Bluebook recommends “against citation to
ECF pagination in lieu of original pagination.” Wilson, 772 F. Supp. 2d at 257 n.5. Thus, unless
stated otherwise, this court will cite the original pagination in the parties’ pleadings. When the court
cites to pagination generated by the ECF header, it will, as here, precede the page number with the
Complaint, at ECF 5-8.
Id. at ECF 9-22.
Plaintiff does not specify the defendant to which these allegations refer.
Complaint, at ECF 2-3 (alterations supplied).
Again, plaintiff does not specify the defendant to which these demands are directed.
determine to prohibit this type of malicious and fraudulent act
committed by the Defendant to deter other agents/brokers from
commiting [sic] these same types of acts.10
The pertinent allegations of the complaint drafted by plaintiff read as follows:
4. On June 23, 2010, The defendant Joseph M Blake Jr., came
over to Ralph Payne Jr.[’s] house to take his current wife Ungkna Payne
off of PRIMERICA policy number 0488506732 as beneficiary and
added the plaintiff (Lisa A. Hodo) as beneficiary because Ralph Payne
Jr. was going through a nasty divorce. . . .
5. In January 2011 the plaintiff Lisa A. Hodo received a life
insurance annuity statement in the mail from Polish National Alliance
of North America (PNA). The Plaintiff does not have a life insurance
policy with PNA. In a letter dated August 9, 2012 from Catherine
O’Neal[,] Ombudsman from the Department of Insurance State of
Arizona[,] PNA is a “fraternal benefit society licensed in Arizona but
have [sic] minimal business in the state only reporting 12,440.00
premium in 2010.” The department was not able to investigate this
matter on my behalf becau[s]e I could not provide any information to
them that the transaction occurred in Arizona.
6. On April 26, 2012, the plaintiff wrote to the Arizona Insurance
Commissioner Office [sic] about being part of an insurance scam. There
were several correspondence [sic] between the plaintiff Lisa A HodoPayne, Arizona Insurance Commissioner[,] and PRIMERICA. . . .
7. The plaintiff[,] through her divorce attorney[,] subpoena[ed]
the PRIME[R]ICA policy # 0488506732 that was signed by the plaintiff
on June 23, 2010. The policy was allowed to lapse (3) months later on
September of 2010. The defendant was the agent on the policy that
dates back to 2008, and knowing that Ralph Payne was diagnosed with
Hypertension, Dislipidemia, Hyperlipidemia, and Degenerative Joint
Disease allowed the policy to lapse. The defendant Joseph M Blake Jr
used that life insurance policy as part of a ploy/scheme.
Complaint, at 3 (alterations supplied).
8. The defendant was questioned by the Arizona Insurance
Commissioner Office and PRIMERICA and in a letter dated August 9,
2012 sent to the plaintiff by Arizona Insurance Commissioner Office
states “the reason the defendant asked the plaintiff to sign but not date
the life insurance application because the defendant did not at that time
know how long it would be before he could meet with Mr. Payne to get
his signature and updated information for the reinstatement request[.]”
[sic] The Arizona Commissioner Officer and PRIMERICA committed
a duty of oversight during their investigation because the copy of the
application that the defendant sent along with the first letter of
complaint already had Mr. Payne[’s] signature on it.11
Defendants make several arguments in support of dismissing plaintiff’s
complaint.12 The court will only address those arguments that are necessary for a
resolution of defendants’ motions.
Defendants assert that plaintiff’s claims for mail fraud must be dismissed
because there is no private right of action for mail fraud.13 Plaintiff did not dispute
Complaint, at ECF 6-8, ¶¶ 4-8 (alterations supplied).
Defendant PFS Investments asserts: (1) it is not the proper the defendant; (2) the complaint
fails to comply with the minimum pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
(3) all of plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations; (4) plaintiff failed to
allege the “reckless indifference” or “wantonness” required to support a claim of wantonness under
Alabama law; (5) plaintiff’s claims for consumer fraud and misrepresentation were not pled with the
specificity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b); (6) plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty
claim fails because PFS does not owe plaintiff a fiduciary duty; and (7) there is no private right
action for “mail fraud.” Doc. no. 9, at 2. Defendant Joseph Mitchell Blake adopts all but the first
argument asserted by PFS. Doc. no. 10, at 1, 9. He additionally asserts that this court lacks personal
jurisdiction over him. Id. at 2-9.
Mail fraud is criminally prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 1341, which provides:
that assertion in her response brief,14 and the applicable law supports defendants’
argument. See Napper v. Anderson, Henley, Shields, Bradford and Pritchard, 500
F.2d 634, 636 (5th Cir. 1974)15 (declining to view the statutes prohibiting mail fraud
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to
defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent
pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter,
give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit
or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be
or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of
executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or
authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or
delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or
thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier,
or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be
delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place
at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such
matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years,
or both. If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized,
transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a
presidentially declared major disaster or emergency (as those terms are defined in
section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act
(42 U.S.C. 5122)), or affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not
more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.
Relatedly, 18 U.S.C. § 1342 states:
Whoever, for the purpose of conducting, promoting, or carrying on by means
of the Postal Service, any scheme or device mentioned in section 1341 of this title or
any other unlawful business, uses or assumes, or requests to be addressed by, any
fictitious, false, or assumed title, name, or address or name other than his own proper
name, or takes or receives from any post office or authorized depository of mail
matter, any letter, postal card, package, or other mail matter addressed to any such
fictitious, false, or assumed title, name, or address, or name other than his own proper
name, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
See doc. no. 13 (“Affirmation of Plaintiff Lisa A. Hodo-Payne in Opposition to Defendant
(Joseph Mitchell Blake Jr. Motion to Dismiss”).
The Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit
handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981, in Bonner v. City of Prichard,
661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
and wire fraud as anything besides “purely penal”); American General Life and
Accident Insurance Co. v. Ward, 509 F. Supp. 2d 1324, 1335 (N.D. Ga. 2007) (“The
federal mail and wire fraud statutes do not, in and of themselves, create a private right
of action.”). Accordingly, plaintiff’s civil claims for mail fraud are due to be
Statutes of Limitations
Defendants assert that plaintiff’s other claims are barred by the applicable
statute of limitations, which is two years for each remaining claim. See Liberty
National Life Insurance Co. v. Ingram, 887 So.2d 222, 227 (Ala. 2004) (“Claims of
fraudulent misrepresentation and suppression are subject to a two-year statute of
limitations.”) (citations and quotation marks omitted); Tonsmeire v. AmSouth Bank,
659 So.2d 601, 604 (Ala. 1995) (“The statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary
duty is two years.”) (citations omitted); Henson v. Celtic Life Insurance Co., 621
So.2d 1268, 1274 (Ala. 1993) (“The statutory period of limitations for negligence and
wantonness actions, found at Ala. Code 1975, § 6-2-38, is two years from the date the
Thus, to be timely, all of plaintiff’s claims would have to be based on actions
that occurred on or after April 24, 2012. All of the actions of which she complains,
however, occurred before that date. Plaintiff states that she was added as a
beneficiary to her (then-future) husband’s life insurance policy on June 23, 2010.16
That policy lapsed in September of 2010.17 She received a life insurance annuity
statement from Polish National Alliance of North America in January of 2011.18
Plaintiff wrote a letter to the Arizona Insurance Commissioner’s Office on April 26,
2012, complaining of actions taken by defendant Joseph M. Blake, an Arizona
insurance agent.19 In that letter, plaintiff explains that the fraud perpetrated on her
consisted of her husband and Blake cancelling Policy No. 0488506732, on which
plaintiff was the primary beneficiary, and taking out an insurance policy on plaintiff
“naming themselves as the beneficiaries without [plaintiff’s] knowledge or consent.”20
To support that theory, she states:
Complaint, at ECF 6-7, ¶ 4. See also id. at Exhibit C (July 9, 2010 letter from Primerica
Life Insurance Company, confirming that the effective date of the beneficiary change was June 23,
2010). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d) states that,
[i]f, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c), matters outside the pleadings
are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for
summary judgment under Rule 56. All parties must be given a reasonable
opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d) (alteration supplied). Thus, courts usually “do not consider anything beyond
the face of the complaint and documents attached thereto when analyzing a motion to dismiss.”
Financial Security Assurance, Inc. v. Stephens, Inc., 500 F.3d 1276, 1284 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing
Brooks v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., 116 F.3d 1364, 1368 (11th Cir. 1997))
(emphasis supplied). Because the letter cited above was attached to plaintiff’s complaint, the court
can consider it without converting the motions to dismiss into motions for summary judmgent.
Complaint, at ECF 8, ¶ 7. See also id. at Exhibit G.
Complaint, at ECF 7, ¶ 5. See also id. at Exhibit D.
Complaint, at Exhibit F.
Id. at 2 (alteration supplied).
In February of 2011, I received a phone call from Ralph stating
that Joe Blake needs me to sign some additional paper work and take an
HIV exam on his insurance policy #0488506732/88506732, for me to
become beneficiary since we are married. He told me Mr. Blake will
mail the paperwork to me with his instructions on how to complete it
and he will enclose a self-address[ed] return envelope[.]
I received the insurance forms and HIV test from Mr. Blake with
his instructions for me to sign but not to date the forms and his
instruction on the HIV test. Attached is a copy of the insurance agent
Joe Blake [sic] letter of instructions mailed to me, copies of the forms
I signed, copy of the seal from [the] HIV kit, and a copy of the priority
mail that has Mr. Blake’s return address. I noticed on the forms that the
two digits (04) was not in front of the policy number on the forms that
I signed but assumed since all of the other digits were the same, it was
the same policy. I also noticed that page 5 was not included with the
other forms for me to sign. In August of 2010 [sic: 2011],21 I met my
husband in Detroit, Michigan for his family reunion and addressed my
concerns and inquired about the change of beneficiaries, and was told
the policy was cancelled because of his epilepsy and anxiety medical
conditions. This is when everything started to make sense.22
Plaintiff appears to assert that the applicable statutes of limitations should be
tolled, because she filed suit within two years of discovering the actions that led to
her claims.23 In Alabama, the so-called “discovery rule” applies only to fraud claims.
The court gives plaintiff the benefit of the doubt and assumes she intended to write 2011
instead of 2010, as the paperwork she allegedly discussed with her husband in August did not even
exist until early 2011. Moreover, plaintiff refers to meeting her “husband” in Detroit, but she and
Mr. Payne were not married until January of 2011. See id. at 1.
Id. at 1-2 (alterations and emphasis supplied).
See doc. no. 13, at 7 (“The Plaintiff[’s] statute of limitations started on April 26, 2012,
when the injury happened and the complaint was filed on April 25, 2014. However[,] Alabama
Statute of Limitations in some cases is controlled by the occurrence rule, which begins to run when
the injury or defect occurs, not when it is discovered. The discovery rule starts the clock when the
plaintiff knows, or at least should have known, the injury happened.”) (alterations supplied).
Utilities Board of City of Opp v. Shuler Brothers, Inc., 138 So.3d 287, 293 (Ala.
2013) (citing DGB, LLC v. Hinds, 55 So. 3d 218, 223 (Ala. 2010)) (“The ‘discovery
rule’ in Alabama applies only to fraud actions, see § 6-2-3, Ala. Code 1975, and cases
involving the fraudulent concealment of the existence of a cause of action.”); see also
Henson, 621 So.2d at 1274 (“There is . . . no ‘discovery rule’ to toll the running of the
limitations period with respect to negligence or wantonness actions.”). Accordingly,
there is no question that plaintiff’s wantonness and breach of fiduciary claims are
barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.
With regard to plaintiff’s remaining claims for consumer fraud and
misrepresentation, “the claim must not be considered as having accrued until the
discovery by the aggrieved party of the fact constituting the fraud, after which he
must have two years within which to prosecute his action.” Ala. Code § 6-2-3 (1975
& 2005 Repl. Vol.).
[A] party will be deemed to have “discovered” a fraud as a matter of law
upon the first of either the actual discovery of the fraud or when the
party becomes privy to facts that would provoke inquiry in a reasonable
person that, if followed up, would lead to the discovery of the fraud.
Dickinson v. Land Developers Construction Co., Inc., 882 So.2d 291, 298 (Ala. 2003)
(citing Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Abston, 822 So.2d 1187, 1195 (Ala. 2001);
Gray v. Liberty National Life Insurance Co., 623 So.2d 1156, 1159 (Ala. 1993))
Although it is not entirely clear from plaintiff’s brief, she appears to assert that
she discovered the alleged fraud on April 26, 2012, the date on which she submitted
her complaint to the Arizona Insurance Commissioner’s Office. That assertion
simply cannot be logically supported by any of the allegations of plaintiff’s
complaint, or any of the materials she attached to her complaint. Plaintiff may not
have sent her complaint letter to the Arizona Insurance Commissioner’s Officer until
April 26, 2012, but it is clear that she was aware of the facts supporting her complaint
before that date.24 As discussed above, all of the actions that support plaintiff’s fraud
claims occurred well before April of 2012, and plaintiff has offered no facts to
indicate that she was prevented from discovering the effects of those actions until that
time. In fact, plaintiff affirmatively indicates that she was aware of the alleged fraud
before April of 2012. When plaintiff received the insurance forms from Mr. Blake
sometime between February and August of 2011, she had questions about some
discrepancies on the forms. By August of 2011, plaintiff was sufficiently suspicious
to confront her husband about the change of beneficiary forms, and she acknowledges
that “everything started to make sense” at that time.
It is important to note that there is no requirement for plaintiff to submit her complaint to
the state Insurance Commissioner, or to exhaust any other type of administrative remedies, before
filing suit in federal court. Therefore, no plausible argument could be made that the statute of
limitations was tolled while plaintiff pursued pre-suit administrative remedies.
A reasonable interpretation of the pleadings submitted by plaintiff indicates
either that she actually discovered the fraud allegedly perpetrated against her before
April of 2012, or that she was aware, by that date, of sufficient facts to prompt a
reasonable person to investigate further. Accordingly, plaintiff’s consumer fraud and
misrepresentation claims also are due to be dismissed as untimely filed.
Motion for Leave to Amend
Plaintiff requests leave to amend her complaint to change the name of
defendant “PFS Investment, Inc.” to “Primerica Life Insurance,” and to state that
defendant Joseph M. Blake was registered as a Securities Broker/Dealer /Agent with
the Alabama Securities Commission from April 5, 2010 through sometime in 2012.25
These changes are in response to defendants’ arguments that plaintiff named the
wrong corporate entity as a defendant, and that this court lacks personal jurisdiction
over Mr. Blake.26 Neither of those arguments was necessary to this court’s decision
on defendants’ motions to dismiss.
Moreover, plaintiff’s proposed amended
complaint contains no additional allegations that would affect the outcome of the
dispositive issue, the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the amendment would be
futile, and the motion to dismiss is due to be denied.
Doc. no. 12, at 1-2.
See doc. no. 9 (PFS Investments Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum of Law in
Support); doc. no. 10 (Joseph Mitchell Blake, Jr.’s Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum of Law in
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDERS
In accordance with the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend her
complaint is DENIED. Both defendants’ motions to dismiss are GRANTED, and all
claims embraced herein are DISMISSED with prejudice. Costs are taxed to plaintiff.
The Clerk is directed to close this file.
DONE this 15th day of July, 2014.
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?