Bradley v. Pay Pal, Inc.

Filing 37

ORDER by Judge Whyte granting 25 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT--No. C-08-03924 RMW JAS E-FILED on 04/17/09 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION Theresa Bradley, Psy.D., Plaintiff, v. PayPal, Inc., Defendant. No. C-08-03924 RMW ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT At the January 23, 2009 hearing for PayPal, Inc.'s ("Paypal") motion to dismiss, PayPal argued that although Theresa Bradley's ("Bradley") complaint states that Paypal violated federal law, the supporting allegations fail to state a federal claim. After the hearing, the court issued an order to show cause, finding that plaintiff could not satisfy diversity jurisdiction's amount-in-controversy requirement and ordering plaintiff to show why her complaint should not be dismissed for lack of federal-question subject matter jurisdiction. Order to Show Cause 2, Docket No. 35. Plaintiff filed her response on March 2, 2009, and Paypal has filed no opposition. The court finds that plaintiff's response fails to show a sufficient basis for federal-question subject matter jurisdiction. Bradley's response cites three federal statutes that she alleges Paypal has 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 violated. Neither the complaint nor the supplemental filing adequately alleges conduct to state a claim for violation of federal law. Bradley states in her response that Paypal violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). Plaintiff must satisfy the pleading requirements of RICO: "The elements of a civil RICO claim are as follows: (1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity (known as 'predicate acts') (5) causing injury to the plaintiff's business or property." Living Designs, Inc. v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 431 F.3d 353, 361 (9th Cir. 2005). The response does not allege how Paypal's conduct satisfies any of these elements. Bradley also states that Paypal violated the Truth In Lending Act at 15 U.S.C. 1666, 1666i, and 1640(e). The purpose of the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA") is to promote "the informed use of credit" by assuring "meaningful disclosure of credit terms [to consumers] so that the consumer will be able to . . . avoid the uninformed use of credit." 15 U.S.C. 1601(a). The TILA statute also delegates to the Federal Reserve Board the authority to promulgate regulations. 15 U.S.C. 1604(a). Bradley does not allege how Paypal's conduct constitutes a violation of the TILA. Finally, Bradley cites 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq, which is part of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Again Bradley does not identify a particular section that Paypal violated, nor specific facts that constitute a violation. ORDER For the reasons stated above, plaintiff's complaint is dismissed because she has not shown a sufficient basis for subject matter jurisdiction. Bradley shall have 20 days leave to amend. DATED: 4/17/09 RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT--No. C-08-03924 RMW JAS 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Notice of this document has been sent to: Counsel for Plaintiff: Theresa Bradley, Pro Se 6418 Old Post Court Columbus, GA 31909 Counsel for Defendants: Carlos Gregory Martinez cmartin@isonlaw.com Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program. Dated: 4/17/09 JAS Chambers of Judge Whyte ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT--No. C-08-03924 RMW JAS 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?