Washington v. Cuna Mutual Group
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 7 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; and DIRECTING the Clerk to CLOSE this Case. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 6/9/2014. (c/m 6/10/14 rs) (rss, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CUNA MUTUAL GROUP
Case No. RWT 13-cv-3102
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On October 18, 2013, Plaintiff George Washington filed a Complaint alleging that
CUNA Mutual Group “denied making payment towards [his] unemployment insurance account
to Navy Federal Credit Union Bank.” ECF No. 1. Although the claims are difficult to interpret,
the Plaintiff seems to allege “discrimination with prejudice” and “fraudulent extortion” and
requests $250,000 in damages. Id. On November 12, 2013, the Defendant filed a Motion to
Dismiss the Complaint. ECF No. 7. The Plaintiff filed an Opposition on November 18, 2013 and
the Defendant filed a Reply on November 25, 2013. ECF Nos. 11, 14.
The purpose of a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is “to
test the sufficiency of a complaint.” Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243
(4th Cir. 1999). A court must consider all well-pleaded allegations in a complaint as true, see
Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 268 (1994), and must construe factual allegations “in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff,” see Lambeth v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Davidson Cnty.,
407 F.3d 266, 268 (4th Cir. 2005).
“To survive a motion to dismiss, 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) (internal quotation marks omitted). “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. “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.’” Id. at 679 (quoting
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)); see also Simmons & United Mortg. & Loan Invest., 634 F.3d 754, 768
(4th Cir. 2011) (“On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must be dismissed if it does not allege
enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”) (internal quotation marks and
emphasis omitted). “Thus, ‘[i]n reviewing a motion to dismiss an action pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6) . . . [a court] must determine whether it is plausible that the factual allegations in
the complaint are enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.’” Monroe v. City of
Charlottesville, 579 F.3d 380, 386 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Andrew v. Clark, 561 F.3d 261, 266
(4th Cir. 2009)).
The Defendant’s motion to dismiss is well taken. The Plaintiff fails to articulate any
cognizable basis for a claim of discrimination or fraud. A pro se plaintiff is held to a “‘less
stringent”’ standard than a lawyer, and the Court must liberally construe a pro se plaintiff's
complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble,
429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). However, even under this less stringent standard, the Defendant does
not state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. In addition, the $250,000 in damages
requested are totally unsupported as the Plaintiff offers no information about how he calculated
this number or even how he suffered harm. As such, the damages requested are “too speculative
and immeasurable to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement” of 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Gonzalez v. Fairgale Properties Co., N.V., 241 F.Supp.2d 512, 518 (D. Md. 2002) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, it is this 9th day of June, 2013, by the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland,
ORDERED, that the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED; and it
ORDERED, that the Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.
ROGER W. TITUS
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?