Farrish v. Navy Federal Credit Union
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING 26 response construed as a motion to reconsider (c/m to Plaintiff 10/11/17 sat). Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 10/11/2017. (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
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
dismiss crossed in the mail with the Court’s final opinion and
Plaintiff appears to have sent her response on October
1, 2017, six months after it was due.
(ECF No. 26).
issued its opinion and order dismissing the case on October 5.
(ECF Nos. 24; 25).
The Court received the response to the
motion to dismiss on October 6.
In light of this sequence of
events, the belated response will be treated as a motion to
The response reiterates much of the complaint alleging that
Defendant erred in deducting funds from Plaintiff’s accounts and
that Defendant would not fix its errors.
(ECF No. 26, at 1).
Plaintiff does not argue that any of Defendant’s calls were
Plaintiff does not identify any facts in the
complaint that would show a specific billing error which she
timely notified Defendant about and for which, Defendant, after
procedure in violation of the Fair Credit Banking Act.
v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 28 F.Supp.3d 575, 593 (E.D.Va.
2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiff does not
alleged in support of her Truth in Lending Act claim.
does not provide an explanation as to how the facts alleged
constitute a violation of Electronic Funds Transfer Act.
Accordingly, construed as a motion to reconsider,
it is DENIED.
October 11, 2017
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?