Farrish v. Navy Federal Credit Union

Filing 27

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
:
v.

:

Civil Action No. DKC 16-1429

:
NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
In

an

Plaintiff’s

unusual
much

sequence

belated

of

events,

response

to

it

appears

Defendant’s

motion

that
to

dismiss crossed in the mail with the Court’s final opinion and
order.

Plaintiff appears to have sent her response on October

1, 2017, six months after it was due.

(ECF No. 26).

This Court

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
reconsider.
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
telemarketing

calls

Protection Act.

in

violation

of

the

Telephone

Consumer

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
receiving

the

notification,

failed

to

follow

the

procedure in violation of the Fair Credit Banking Act.

proper
See Murr

v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 28 F.Supp.3d 575, 593 (E.D.Va.
2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).
discuss

the

failure

to

receive

billing

Plaintiff does not
statements

alleged in support of her Truth in Lending Act claim.

which

she

Plaintiff

does not provide an explanation as to how the facts alleged
constitute a violation of Electronic Funds Transfer Act.
short,

Plaintiff

complaint

which

still proper.

has
led

not
to

filled-in

dismissal

any

and

of

the

therefore

gaps

in

dismissal

In
her
is

Accordingly, construed as a motion to reconsider,

it is DENIED.

October 11, 2017

/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

2