Makreas v. The Moore Law Group, A.P.C. et al
Filing
83
ORDER GRANTING CITIBANK'S MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR FURTHER LEAVE TO AMEND. Citibank's motion to dismiss the Second Cause of Action is granted, and said cause of action, as alleged against Citibank, is dismisse d without further leave to amend. Makreas's request for further leave to amend is denied. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the file. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on April 26, 2012. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/26/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/26/2012: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tmi, COURT STAFF).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
11
NICK MAKREAS,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
No. C-11-2406 MMC
ORDER GRANTING CITIBANK’S
MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR FURTHER
LEAVE TO AMEND
v.
THE MOORE LAW GROUP, A.P.C., et al.,
Defendants.
15
/
16
17
Before the Court is defendant Citibank (South Dakota), N.A.’s (“Citibank”) motion to
18
dismiss, filed March 9, 2012, by which Citibank seeks an order dismissing the Second
19
Cause of Action, the sole claim alleged against it in the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”).
20
Plaintiff Nick Makreas (“Makreas”) has filed opposition, to which Citibank has replied.
21
Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion,
22
the Court rules as follows.1
23
By order filed February 2, 2012, the Court dismissed all of the claims alleged against
24
Citibank in the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), and afforded Makreas leave to amend
25
one of those claims, specifically, the claim, included in the Second Cause of Action,
26
alleging Citibank’s vicarious liability under the Rosenthal Act for violations committed by
27
The Moore Law Group, A.P.C. (“Moore”).
28
1
By order filed April 17, 2012, the Court took the motion under submission.
1
As explained in the Court’s February 2, 2012 order, said claim, as alleged in the
2
SAC, was deficient for the reason that Makreas failed to allege facts to support a finding
3
that Citibank, by entering into an agreement with Moore pursuant to which Moore
4
thereafter attempted to collect a debt assertedly owed by Makreas to Citibank, had “the
5
right to control the activities of [such] alleged agent.” See Fenton v. Freedman, 748 F.2d
6
1358, 1361-62 (9th Cir. 1984); see also, e.g., Garcia v. W & W Community Development,
7
Inc., 186 Cal. App. 4th 1038, 1049 (2010) (holding “[o]ne who renders services for a
8
specified recompense for a specified result, under the control of his principal as to the
9
result of his work only, and not as to the means by which such result is accomplished[,] is
10
an independent contractor”; further holding “[a]n independent contractor . . . is not an
11
agent”) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
12
As Citibank points out in its motion to dismiss, Makreas has failed to cure the above-
13
referenced deficiency. The Second Cause of Action, as alleged in the TAC, again fails to
14
include any factual allegations to support a finding that Citibank had the right to control
15
Moore’s debt collection activities; Makreas’s conclusory allegations that “[Moore’s] actions
16
are controlled, ratified, and authorized by [Citibank]” (see TAC ¶ 31) and that “[Citibank]
17
has orchestrated its agents in [a] continued pattern of violation of federal and state law”
18
(see TAC ¶ 57) are deficient as a matter of law. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
19
(2009) (holding “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
20
mere conclusory statements” are insufficient to state claim for relief).
21
In his opposition, Makreas cites to no additional facts he could allege in an effort to
22
state a claim against Citibank based on vicarious liability. Indeed, to the extent Makreas
23
addresses such claim in his opposition, Makreas does no more than reiterate conclusory
24
assertions. (See, e.g., Pl.’s Opp. at 6:3 (stating “Citibank was clearly in control”).)
25
26
27
28
Accordingly, the Second Cause of Action is subject to dismissal, without further
leave to amend.
In his opposition, Makreas requests leave to allege a “new violation” by Citibank,
occurring after he instituted the instant action. (See id. at 5:4-8.) The new claim Makreas
2
1
proposes to allege is that Citibank, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”),
2
“enter[ed] erroneous and inaccurate information into [Makreas’s] credit reports.” (See id. at
3
5:4-6; see also id. at 4:13-15.) In making said request, Makreas acknowledges that the
4
Court, in a prior order, found no private cause of action exists under the FCRA for such a
5
claim, (see Order, filed October 11, 2011, at 6:21-28, 10:6-11), and requests the Court “re-
6
visit[ ]” said prior ruling, (see Pl.’s Opp. at 4:13-15). Makreas fails, however, to identify any
7
cognizable basis for reconsideration of the Court’s prior ruling. See Civil L.R. 7-9(b)
8
(setting forth grounds for reconsideration).2 Given said ruling, which would be equally
9
applicable to Makreas’s proposed amendment, the request will be denied. See Bonin v.
10
Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Futility of amendment can, by itself, justify the
11
denial of a motion for leave to amend.”); see, e.g., Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 388 F.3d
12
39, 65 (2nd Cir. 2004) (affirming denial of motion to file supplemental complaint, where
13
proposed new claim would have been “futile”).
Similarly, Makreas, in the TAC, “requests that this Court grant him leave to file a
14
15
fourth amended complaint restoring the FCRA, § 1681n and § 1681o, and/or other actions
16
that were dismissed previously against [Citibank].” (See TAC ¶ 60.) Again, however,
17
Makreas fails to identify any cognizable basis for reconsideration of the Court’s prior
18
orders. See Civil L.R. 7-9(b).
In sum, Makreas has failed to remedy the previously-identified deficiencies in his
19
20
Second Amended Complaint, and has failed to show any further leave to amend would be
21
other than futile.
22
//
23
//
24
//
25
//
26
//
27
2
28
Additionally, Makreas’s request for reconsideration is procedurally improper, as he
failed to seek leave to file a motion for reconsideration. See Civil L.R. 7-9(a).
3
CONCLUSION
1
2
For the reasons stated above:
3
1. Citibank’s motion to dismiss the Second Cause of Action is hereby GRANTED,
4
and said cause of action, as alleged against Citibank, is hereby DISMISSED without further
5
leave to amend.
6
2. Makreas’s request for further leave to amend is hereby DENIED.
7
The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the file.
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
10
Dated: April 26, 2012
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?