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
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?