Stallard v. Bank of America, N.A.

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM OPINION: For the reasons stated above, the defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted by an appropriate Order to be issued with this Memorandum Opinion. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 9/22/15. (yguy)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division

JOSEPH A. STALLARD,
Plaintiff,

l:15-cv-416(LMB/JFA)

V.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the Court is defendant Bank of America's Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt.
No. 13]. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted.
I.

BACKGROUND

This civil action concerns pro se plaintiff Joseph A. Stallard's allegations that defendant
Bank of America ("Bank" or the "defendant") violated state and federal law by charging Stallard
excessive interest rates. Complaint [Dkt. No. 1] ("Compl.") ^ 3. In March of 2006, Stallard

opened an unsecured revolving credit account ("the account") with the defendant's predecessor,
MBNA America ("MBNA"). Defendant Bank of America's Answer and Affirmative Defenses

[Dkt. No. 3] ("Answer") at 2. Stallard alleges that MBNA and the defendant had already merged
at that point, meaning that he opened the account with the Bankratherthan with its predecessor.
Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 16] ("Opp'n")
at 1. The account had an initial credit line of $5,000. Defendant Bank of America's

Memorandimi in Support of its Motion for SummaryJudgment [Dkt. No. 14] ("MSJ Br.") at 3.
Upon opening the account Stallard made a balance transfer to the account of $4,348. Id