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)

Download PDF
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

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?