Godwin v. Piepszak et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting Chase Bank's 9 Motion for More Definite Statement; setting deadline for Plaintiff to file amended complaint as directed; directing clerk shall amend docket to reflect the correct name of the corporate entity sued is Chase Bank USA, N.A. Signed by Chief Judge James K. Bredar on 2/20/2018. (dass, Deputy Clerk) (c/m 2/21/18-das)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
*
PAUL GODWIN,

*

Plaintiff

*

v.

*

JENNIFER PIEPSZAK et al.,
Defendants
*
*

CIVIL NO. JKB-17-3575

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
I. Background
Representing himself, Plaintiff Paul Godwin filed a form complaint in the District Court
of Maryland for Anne Arundel County. (Compl., ECF No. 2.) He named as defendants Jennifer
Piepszak and Chase Card.1 The entire substance of his allegations is as follows:
Failure of Chase Card to provide copies of documents bearing my signature,
showing that I have a legally binding contractual obligation to pay them the
alleged amount of $2,335. Which is the total amount Chase Card is reporting to
the credit bureaus. I am suing for defamation, negligent enablement of identity
fraud, violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (including but not
limited to Section 807-8), and violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(including but not limited to Section 623-b).
(Id.) As relief, Godwin requested $4,835 plus court costs. (Id.)
1

Because the format in which Godwin named the defendants indicated the suit had only one defendant, it
is possible that he named Jennifer Piepszak as the sole defendant and meant to indicate her address as
Chase Card
P.O. Box 15298
Wilmington, DE 19850-5298.
However, Chase Bank USA, N.A. (“Chase”), has not unreasonably interpreted the ambiguity as indicating
Chase was also sued, albeit under an incorrect corporate name. This Court, likewise, interprets the complaint as
naming both Piepszak and Chase as defendants. The Court will direct the Clerk to amend the docket to reflect
Chase’s correct name.

Chase Bank USA, N.A. (“Chase”), removed the case to this Court and filed a motion for
more definite statement. (ECF Nos. 1, 9.) Godwin has filed no response to the motion, which is
ripe for decision. No hearing is necessary. Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). The motion will be
granted.
II. Standard for More Definite Statement
Under Rule 12(e),
[a] party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a
responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party
cannot reasonably prepare a response. The motion must . . . point out the defects
complained of and the details desired.
Noting the interplay between the fundamental pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) and the
permissibility of a motion for more definite statement under Rule 12(e), the Fourth Circuit has
stated, “when the complaint conforms to Rule 8(a) and it is neither so vague nor so ambiguous
that the defendant cannot reasonably be required to answer, the district court should deny a
motion for a more definite statement.” Hodgson v. Va. Baptist Hosp., 482 F.2d 821, 824 (4th
Cir. 1973). Because the foregoing standard requires conformance to Rule 8(a), the Court relies
upon the familiar Iqbal-Twombly standard to determine whether Godwin’s complaint states a
claim for relief.
III. Standard of Dismissal for Failure to State a Claim
A complaint 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 Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Facial plausibility exists “when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. An inference of a mere
2

possibility of misconduct is not sufficient to support a plausible claim. Id. at 679. As the
Twombly opinion stated, “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” 550 U.S. at 555. “A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’ . . . Nor does a complaint
suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557). Although when considering a motion to
dismiss a court must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint, this principle does not
apply to legal conclusions couched as factual allegations. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
IV. Analysis
In its present form, Godwin’s complaint fails to state a claim for relief and is, at best,
vague and ambiguous. The only two factual allegations in Godwin’s complaint indicate that
Chase has not provided him with copies of unspecified documents and that Chase is reporting
something about him to credit bureaus.

Otherwise, Godwin’s complaint consists of bare

conclusions. Godwin must file an amended complaint that provides sufficient factual content to
establish each element of each cause of action he is asserting. Thus, Godwin’s pleading must
include the addition of enough facts such that the Court may plausibly infer that Defendants have
engaged in wrongful conduct. Further, Godwin must allege facts that are specific to each named
Defendant, and he must state when and where the events giving rise to Defendants’ alleged
liability occurred. Chase’s motion, therefore, is meritorious.
V. Conclusion
In accordance with this memorandum opinion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Chase’s
motion for more definite statement (ECF No. 9) IS GRANTED. Godwin SHALL FILE an
amended complaint, consistent with the standards set forth above, within thirty days of the date
3

of this order. The Clerk SHALL AMEND the docket to reflect that the correct name of the
corporate entity sued is Chase Bank USA, N.A, and the Clerk SHALL MAIL a copy of this
memorandum and order to Godwin at the address on file with the Court.
DATED this 20th day of February, 2018.

BY THE COURT:

____________/s/______________________
James K. Bredar
Chief Judge

4