Farrish v. Navy Federal Credit Union
MEMORANDUM OPINION (c/m to Plaintiff 3/2/17 sat). Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 3/2/2017. (sat, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
KUKIA R. FARRISH
Civil Action No. DKC 16-1429
NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
Presently pending and ready for resolution is the motion to
(ECF No. 13).
The issues have been briefed, and
the court now rules, no hearing being deemed necessary.
For the following reasons, the motion to dismiss
will be granted.
against Defendant in the District Court of Maryland for Prince
George’s County on April 8, 2016.
(ECF No. 2).
“particulars of this case”:
Credit card (Cash Rewards Card)
payments weren’t applied properly excessive
Broken FDCPA laws on collection
Calls (TCPA) harassing me
false credit report reported
ATM deposit wasn’t properly inputed
los[s] of $300 for Clinton branch
threatened to close my account and they did.
They caused me pain and suffering and
Defendant removed the case to federal court because the
specifically the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”),
15 U.S.C. § 1692, and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227.
(ECF No. 1, at 2).
its motion to dismiss on May 19.
(ECF No. 13).
responded (ECF No. 15), and Defendant replied (ECF No. 16).
Standard of Review
The purpose of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is
to test the sufficiency of the complaint.
Presley v. City of
Charlottesville, 464 F.3d 480, 483 (4th Cir. 2006).
need only satisfy the standard of Rule 8(a), which requires a
“short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief.”
still requires a ‘showing,’ rather than a blanket assertion, of
entitlement to relief.”
544, 555 n.3 (2007).
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
That showing must consist of more than “a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” or
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citations omitted).
complaint must be considered as true, Albright v. Oliver, 510
construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 176 F.3d 776, 783
(4th Cir. 1999) (citing Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d
1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993)); Brockington v. Boykins, 637 F.3d
unsupported legal allegations need not be accepted.
Charles Cty. Comm’rs, 882 F.2d 870, 873 (4th Cir. 1989).
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, as are conclusory factual allegations
Firefighters v. Hirst, 604 F.2d 844, 847 (4th Cir. 1979); see
also Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 192 (4th Cir. 2009).
“[W]here 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
Thus, “[d]etermining whether a complaint states a
plausible claim for relief will . . . be a context-specific task
experience and common sense.”
held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)); Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
Liberal construction means that the
court will read the pleadings to state a valid claim to the
extent that it is possible to do so from the facts available; it
does not mean that the court should rewrite the complaint to
include claims never presented.
1128, 1132 (10th Cir. 1999).
Barnett v. Hargett, 174 F.3d
That is, even when pro se litigants
are involved, the court cannot ignore a clear failure to allege
facts that support a viable claim.
Weller v. Dep’t of Soc.
Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990); Forquer v. Schlee, No.
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (“[E]ven a pro
se complaint must be dismissed if it does not allege a plausible
claim for relief.”).
The court has examined the Complaint and finds that it does
not comply with federal pleading requirements.
It is well-
settled law that the allegations in a complaint must “give the
defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.”
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534
Instead of a concise statement of facts underlying her cause of
construction, the court cannot determine the precise nature of
(ECF No. 15, at 1-3).
However, “it is axiomatic
opposition to a motion to dismiss.”
Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Akzo,
N.V., 770 F.Supp. 1053, 1068 (D.Md. 1991) (quoting Car Carriers,
Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 745 F.2d 1101 (7th Cir. 1984)); see
Zachair Ltd. v. Driggs, 965 F.Supp. 741, 748 n.4 (D.Md. 1997)
contained in its complaint and cannot, through the use of motion
briefs, amend the complaint”), aff’d, 141 F.3d 1162 (4th Cir.
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss will be granted,
and the court will allow Plaintiff to file an amended complaint.
Should Plaintiff file an amended complaint, she must identify
each of the laws and federal statutes on which this civil action
is predicated and what specific acts or omissions by Defendant
allegedly violated those laws.
She is reminded to put the same
case number on any amended complaint.
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss filed by
Defendant Navy Federal Credit Union will be granted.
order will follow.
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
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?