Olajide v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco et al

Filing 51

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS; VACATING HEARING. The Second Amended Complaint is dismissed without further leave to amend. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 3, 2017. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 OLANAPO AD OLAJIDE, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 16-cv-04472-MMC ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS; VACATING HEARING Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 35, 36, 39 12 13 Before the Court are three motions: (1) "Motion to Dismiss Second Amended 14 Complaint or, in the Alternative, Motion for More Definite Statement," filed December 1, 15 2016, by defendant Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco ("FRB"); (2) "Motion to 16 Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint or for a More Definite Statement," filed 17 December 1, 2016, by defendant Bank of America, N.A. ("BANA"); and (3) "Motion to 18 Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint or for a More Definite Statement," filed 19 December 1, 2016, by defendant Compass Bank ("Compass"). Plaintiff Olanapo Ad 20 Olajide ("Olajide") has filed a single opposition, to which each defendant has replied. 21 Having read and considered the parties' respective written submissions, the Court deems 22 the matters suitable for decision thereon, VACATES the hearing scheduled for January 6, 23 2017,1 and rules as follows. 24 25 By order filed November 4, 2016, the Court dismissed Olajide's First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), finding that although said pleading "identifie[d] a number of 26 1 27 28 Olajide's "Motion for Leave to Appear Telephonically," filed December 28, 2016, is hereby DENIED as moot. For future reference, Olajide is advised that the Court does not conduct hearings on contested motions by telephone. 1 constitutional provisions, statutes and regulations, [it] include[d] no facts to support a 2 claim under any of the identified authorities or other law," and, instead "essentially 3 consist[ed] of conclusory assertions lacking any explanatory factual support." (See 4 Order, filed November 4, 2016, at 2:5-8.) The Court afforded Olajide leave to amend "for 5 purposes of alleging facts to support any legal claims he seeks to assert against 6 defendants." (See id. at 2:18-20.) Thereafter, on November 14, 2016, Olajide filed his 7 Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), titled "Civil Action at Common Law for Account 8 Render and Declaratory Relief." The SAC suffers from the same deficiencies as the FAC. Specifically, although 10 the SAC asserts Olajide has been "damaged by the actions of [defendants]" (see SAC 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 ¶ 107), the SAC again essentially consists of conclusory assertions lacking any 12 explanatory factual support for plaintiff's claim of injury (see, e.g., SAC ¶ 37 (alleging 13 defendants "knew or should have known the material fact that they were specially 14 designated by the U.S.A.'s Secretary of Treasury to act in a position of trust for the 15 benefit of the People"); ¶ 63 (alleging BANA and Compass have "appropriated" Olajide's 16 "servitude, as a source of true value for certificates of deposit that represent Debts 17 charged to [Olajide's] legal trade name"). As explained in the Court's prior order, 18 conclusory assertions are insufficient as a matter of law to state a cognizable claim. See 19 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (holding complaint subject to dismissal 20 where it lacks “sufficient factual matter” to support conclusions); see also Bell Atlantic 21 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (holding "allegations must be enough to 22 raise a right to relief above the speculative level"). 23 In his opposition, Olajide does not contend the SAC cured the deficiencies 24 identified in the Court's prior order, and, instead, "admit[s] that [the SAC] was mistakenly 25 submitted with multiple errors that couldn't be fixed once submitted." (See Pl.'s Opp. at 26 1:14-15. Olajide, however, argues the motions to dismiss should be denied for the 27 asserted reason that he has submitted "new facts" in a different proposed amended 28 complaint attached to the opposition (see id. at 1:21-22), i.e., in a proposed Third 2 1 2 Amended Complaint ("Proposed TAC"). "Although there is a general rule that parties are allowed to amend their pleadings, it does not extend to cases in which any amendment would be an exercise in futility or 4 where the amended complaint would also be subject to dismissal." Steckman v. Hart 5 Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1298 (9th Cir. 1998). Here, as defendants correctly point 6 out, the Proposed TAC would be subject to dismissal, as it fails to allege any facts to 7 support its conclusory assertions that defendants have damaged Olajide. Rather, as with 8 the FAC and the SAC, the Proposed TAC consists of conclusory assertions of injury 9 devoid of factual support. (See, e.g., id. ¶ 26 (alleging Olajide is "true owner of any debts 10 due from security instruments appurtenant to [his] personal property possessed by BANA 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 3 and Compass"); ¶ 46 (alleging defendants "have acted contrary to the duties and 12 functions they agreed to uphold with the U.S.A. Secretary of Treasury by using, 13 depositing in banks, and exchanging for other funds the value received from deposit of 14 [Olajide's] personal property"); ¶ 60 (alleging defendants "have denied [Olajide] the right 15 to inherit the guaranteed payment of Debts secured by the Government of the United 16 States").) 17 In sum, the SAC is subject to dismissal for failure to allege sufficient facts to 18 support the conclusions asserted therein, and further leave to amend will be denied, as 19 the Proposed TAC would itself be subject to dismissal for failure to allege sufficient facts 20 to support the conclusions asserted therein. CONCLUSION 21 22 For the reasons stated above, defendants' motion to dismiss are hereby 23 GRANTED, and the Second Amended Complaint is hereby DISMISSED without further 24 leave to amend. The Clerk of Court shall close the file. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 Dated: January 3, 2017 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge 28 3

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?