Grandoit v. Staples, Inc. et al

Filing 24

Judge Richard G. Stearns: Memorandum and ORDER entered granting 21 Motion to Dismiss "...The Clerk therefore is directed to accept no further Complaints by Grandoit for filing unless he has obtained the prior written permission of the Court." (Flaherty, Elaine)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-10299 RGS
GERARD D. GRANDOIT,
v.
STAPLES, INC.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
December 6, 2011
STEARNS, D.J.
Pro se plaintiff Gerard Grandoit filed this lawsuit seeking damages as a result
of defendant Staples, Inc.’s declination of his “Staples” credit card at one of its stores.
Grandoit asserts eleven claims against Staples: (1) a violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §1681, et seq. (FCRA); (2) a violation of the Fair Credit
Billing Act, 15 U.S.C. §1666, et seq.; (3) an apparent second violation of the FCRA;
(4) a violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691, et seq.; (5)
breach of contract; (6) violations of the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments; (7)
violations of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A,
§ 1, et seq.; (8) violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.
§1692, et seq.; (9) gross negligence and recklessness; (10) “miscellaneous claims” that
appear to be a restatement of several previously alleged counts; and (11) unjust

enrichment. Staples moves to dismiss Grandoit’s Complaint asserting that it is
“unwieldy” and, notwithstanding, fails to “allege specific facts sufficient to support any
plausible claims. Rather, it appears that [Grandoit] is simply upset his credit card was
declined and has attempted to create a potential cause of action where none exists.”1
Def. Mem. at 2.
BACKGROUND
The allegations of the Complaint, viewed in the light most favorable to Grandoit
as the nonmoving party, are as follows. Grandoit opened a Staples credit account in
2006. “Without notice,” sometime in 2009, the account was “discontinued . . . due to
information that Citicorp received from the credit bureau against him which caused his
account to close.” Compl. at 2. Subsequently, Grandoit attempted to use his card to
purchase a computer monitor at a Staples store located at 176 Alewife Brooks
Parkway, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and was “declined.” Grandoit claims that he was

1

Staples notes that Grandoit is no stranger to this court. See Grandoit v.
Gilson, 08-cv-10934-JLT (D. Mass. 2008); Grandoit v. Murray, 08-cv-10938-RGS
(D. Mass. 2008); Grandoit v. Coop. for Human Serv., 08-cv-10939-DPW (D. Mass.
2008); Grandoit v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., No. 08-cv-10941-PBS (D. Mass. 2008);
Grandoit v. Bane, 08-cv-11045-DPW (D. Mass. 2008); Grandoit v. Direct Merch.
Bank and Portfolio Acquisitions, LLC, 08-cv-11276-JLT (D. Mass. 2008); Grandoit
v. The Physician Network, Inc., 08-cv-11494-JLT (D. Mass. 2008); Grandoit v.
Network Capital Funding Corp., 09-cv-10730-RWZ; Grandoit v. Bank of Am., 09-cv11004-RWZ (D. Mass. 2009); Grandoit v. Frigidaire, Electrolux Warranty Corp.,
10-cv-10298-JLT (D. Mass. 2010).
2

“embarrassed and humiliated” when the store manager explained, after “making a
phone call for him to find out what was going on,” that his credit account had been
cancelled. Id. at 1. Grandoit later contacted Staples to let it know that Citicorp had
“wrong information.” Id. ¶ 6. He also complained that Staples had obtained his credit
information from a credit reporting agency without his permission and he planned “to
raise [against it] . . . claims under state and federal law.” Id. at 2. Grandoit demanded
“$3.00 for each word in the letter . . . $6,487.00” as damages. Staples did not respond
to Grandoit’s letter. This action followed.
DISCUSSION
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (internal quotation omitted).

“When there are

well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then
determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id. at 1950. In
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), the Supreme Court explained that,
“[w]hile a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion does not need detailed factual
allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief
requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements
of a cause of action will not do.” Id. at 555 (internal citations and quotations omitted).
3

“[I]n reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, [a court] may consider ‘documents the
authenticity of which are not disputed by the parties; . . . documents central to the
plaintiffs’ claim; [and] documents sufficiently referred to in the complaint.’” Curran
v. Cousins, 509 F.3d 36, 44 (1st Cir. 2007), quoting Watterson v. Page, 987 F.2d 1,
3 (1st Cir. 1993). See also Beddall v. State St. Bank & Trust Co., 137 F.3d 12, 17 (1st
Cir. 1998) (When a “complaint’s factual allegations are expressly linked to – and
admittedly dependent upon – a document (the authenticity of which is not challenged),
that document effectively merges into the pleadings.”).
In his Complaint, Grandoit repeatedly references his “contract account,” “a
contract with . . . terms on legal and mutual boundary accounts,” and the “existence of
a contract.” Compl. at 1, 2 and¶¶ 37-39. To its motion, Staples attaches a copy of the
operative Citibank Card Agreement for the Staples Personal Credit Card Program
(Agreement). The Agreement identifies Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. as the issuer
of the credit account. While the program is entitled “Staples Personal Credit Card
Program,” the Agreement is clear that Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. is the provider
of the credit and that it manages the account.
The immediately relevant provision in the Agreement is entitled (in bold print)
“Changes to this Agreement.” It provides in part:
We may change the rates, fees, and terms of this Agreement at any time
4

for any reason. These reasons may be based on information in your credit
report, such as your failure to make payments to another creditor when
due, amounts owed to other creditors, the number of credit accounts
outstanding, or the number of credit inquiries. These reasons may also
include competitive or market-related factors. Changing terms includes
adding, replacing, or deleting provisions relating to your account and to
the nature, extent, and enforcement of the rights and obligations you or we
have relating to this Agreement. These changes are binding on you.
Agreement at 8. Another proviso of the Agreement states that “[w]e may close your
account or suspend account privileges at any time for any reason without prior notice.”
Staples is not a party to the Agreement governing Grandoit’s Staple’s credit
card. There are no allegations in the Complaint supporting Grandoit’s claims against
Staples. Accordingly, his Complaint will be DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk
will enter an Order of Dismissal and close this case. The court, taking notice of the
numerous filings by this litigant, see n.1, deems him to be an abusive litigant. The
Clerk therefore is directed to accept no further Complaints by Grandoit for filing unless
he has obtained the prior written permission of the court.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Richard G. Stearns
______________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5