Bluefeld v. Cohen et al

Filing 80

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 69 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Paula Xinis on 11/22/2016(c/m 11/22/16 cags, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
BARRY J. BLUEFELD
Plaintiff

*
*

vs.

Civil Action No. PX 15-2857
*

BARRY S. COHEN, et al.,
Defendants.

*
******

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Barry Bluefeld’s (“Bluefeld”) Motion for Leave to
Amend Complaint, ECF No. 69, more properly styled as a Motion for Leave to file a Second
Amended Complaint. In this civil action, Bluefeld seeks to amend his Complaint for the second
time to add a cause of action for money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956, and to do so
derivatively on behalf of Class B shareholders. ECF No. 69-3 at 37. Having filed his Motion
more than twenty-one (21) days after Defendants filed an Answer (ECF No. 33), Plaintiff may
now only amend his Complaint with leave of the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).
Under Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, courts “should freely give
leave [to amend pleadings] where justice so requires.” “Although such motions should be
granted liberally, a district court may deny leave if amending the complaint would be futile—that
is, ‘if the proposed amended complaint fails to satisfy the requirements of the federal rules.’”
United States ex rel. Wilson v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 525 F.3d 370, 376 (4th Cir. 2008)
(quoting United States ex rel. Fowler v. Caremark RX, LLC, 496 F.3d 730, 740 (7th Cir. 2007)).
Here, Bluefeld’s proposed amendment is futile on two grounds. First, no private cause of
action exists to enforce the criminal money laundering statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1956. See, e.g.,
Simmons v. Simmons, 2:08-2951-PMD, 2008 WL 4663157, at *2 (D.S.C. Oct. 17, 2008)

(collecting cases). Second, because Bluefeld is a pro se plaintiff, he cannot proceed with a
derivative shareholder suit. See, e.g., Phillips v. Tobin, 548 F.2d 408, 411-12 (2d Cir. 1976)
(preventing pro se plaintiff from bringing shareholder derivative suit); Pinnavaia v. MoodyStuart, No. 09-03803 CW, 2009 WL 4899218, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2009). This is because a
derivative suit is “a cause of action that belongs to the corporation.” Shoregood Water Co., Inc.
v. U.S. Bottling Co., RDB-08-2470, 2010 WL 723763, at *6 (D. Md. Feb. 24, 2010), and pro se
individuals “may only represent themselves” in actions before this Court. Local Rule 101(a).
Accord Fowler v. Lee, 18 F. App’x 164 (4th Cir. 2001) (pro se litigant cannot represent a class);
Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) (same). Because Bluefeld cannot
proceed as a matter of law with the proposed amended count, it would be futile to grant his
motion.
Accordingly, Bluefeld’s motion for leave to file the second amended complaint, ECF.
No. 69, is DENIED.

11/22/2016
Date

/S/
Paula Xinis
United States District Judge