Nails v. Mastercard Disputes
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's post-dismissal motion to amend her complaint [Doc. # 5 ] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs request for email copies of her complaint and accompanying attachments is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal of this action would not be taken in good faith. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 7/10/15. (JAB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
No. 4:15CV983 CEJ
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s post-dismissal motion for leave to amend
her complaint. Also before the Court is plaintiff’s request for an email copy of her complaint
and accompanying attachments.
Plaintiff filed the instant action against defendant “MasterCard Disputes” to recover
damages arising from an allegedly improper charge to her credit card. The complaint alleged
that plaintiff used her MasterCard credit card to purchase a one-year warranty from an
automobile dealership for an engine for her car. Plaintiff asserted that she later discovered that
the dealership had charged her for a two-year warranty. When the dealership refused to refund
her money, plaintiff filed this action against MasterCard attempting to recover the amount
charged to her credit card by the automobile dealership.
The Court dismissed the present action based on the doctrine of res judicata, as plaintiff
had filed a prior complaint against MasterCard based on the same set of facts as those alleged in
the instant action that had been dismissed with prejudice. See Nails v. MasterCard Disputes,
4:15CV126 CEJ (E.D.Mo.).
Alternatively, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.12(h)(3).
In her motion to amend the complaint, plaintiff fails to indicate how she would amend her
pleading to either plead subject matter jurisdiction or to avoid the bar presented by the dismissal
of her first case. Futility of a proposed amendment and repeated failure to cure deficiencies are
two reasons to deny post-dismissal leave to amend. See United States ex rel. Roop v. Hypoguard
USA, Inc., 559 F.3d 818, 823 (8th Cir.2009). The Court concludes that plaintiff’s motion to
amend fails to overcome the disfavor with which such motions are viewed and the fact that the
proposed amended claims are likely futile. Thus, the motion will be denied.
Plaintiff’s request to have a copy of the complaint and its accompanying attachments
emailed to her will also be denied. Plaintiff may obtain copies of documents filed in this case
from the Clerk’s Office, either in person or by mail, after paying the copying fee of $0.50 per
page in advance.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's post-dismissal motion to amend her
complaint [Doc. #5] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for email copies of her complaint
and accompanying attachments is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal of this action would not be taken in good
Dated this 10th day of July, 2015.
CAROL E. JACKSON
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?