Hagan v. Bogatova

• Decision Date: 15 October 2017
• Docket Number: No. 2:17-cv-1219 MCE DB PS,2:17-cv-1219 MCE DB PS
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
• Parties: LESLIE HAGAN, Plaintiff, v. BRONISLAVA BOGATOVA, et al, Defendants.

LESLIE HAGAN, Plaintiff,
v.
BRONISLAVA BOGATOVA, et al, Defendants.

No. 2:17-cv-1219 MCE DB PS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

October 15, 2017

ORDER

This matter was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Pending before the court is plaintiff's complaint and request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The complaint alleges that defendants Bronislava Bogatova, Vera Rudnitskiy, and Yakov Bogatov conspired to fraudulently accuse plaintiff of the unauthorized use of credit cards. The complaint also alleges that defendant Discover Card Services refused to investigate plaintiff's complaints related to those fraudulent allegations.

I. Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

The court is required to screen complaints brought by parties proceeding in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The undersigned finds that plaintiff's in forma pauperis application makes the showing required by the statute. (ECF No. 2.) Accordingly, plaintiff's request to proceed in

Page 2

forma pauperis will be granted.

However, the court must dismiss an in forma pauperis case at any time if the allegation of poverty is found to be untrue or if it is determined that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). Under this standard, a court must dismiss a complaint as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). In considering whether a complaint states a cognizable claim, the court accepts as true the material allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1989). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981).

The minimum requirements for a civil complaint in federal court are as follows:

A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . . . shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends . . . , (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

II. Plaintiff's Complaint

A. Allegations

Plaintiff's complaint alleges, essentially, as follows. In 2003, plaintiff "Quit Claimed" her home to her mother, defendant Bronislava Bogatova, and defendant Bogatova agreed to pay

Page 3

plaintiff half of any future proceeds from the sale of that home. (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 5.) In 2010, Bogatova sold the home and kept plaintiff's portion of the proceeds "with the agreement and understanding that Bronislava Bogatova" would make plaintiff an authorized user of Bogatova's "Citi Credit card and Discover Credit Card." (Id.) On November 22, 2015, plaintiff's aunt, defendant Vera Rudnitskiy, told an unidentified third party that Rudnitskiy "would conspire" with plaintiff's mother, defendant Bogatova, and plaintiff's brother, defendant Yakov Bogatov, "to file fraudulent fraud allegations" against plaintiff "for using Bronislava Bogatova's credit cards." (Id. at 8.)

"Between January 2016 and June 2016," defendants Rudnitskiy, Bogatova, and Bogatov, filed "fraudulent fraud allegations" against plaintiff. (Id. at 9.) "In late May and early June of 2016, [plaintiff] discovered that fraudulent fraud allegations were filed . . . with Discover Card Services and Citi Credit Cards." (Id.) Citi Credit Cards "did a competent and diligent investigation" and determined that defendant Bogatova "not only knew that [plaintiff] had Citi Credit card but also paid it from her own bank account." (Id.)

Defendant Discover Card Services, ("Discover"), however, refused to perform "competent investigations," "reversed all the charges to the vendors as fraudulent," and retained plaintiff's payments for the charges "because they were fraudulent." (Id. at 9.) Moreover, defendant Discover, "willfully and negligently" continued to furnish inaccurate credit information about plaintiff. (Id. at 11.)

B. Jurisdiction

Based on the above allegations, the complaint asserts causes of action for the violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, ("FCRA"),15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., against defendant Discover, as well as several state law causes of action against all of the defendants. The complaint asserts that the court has jurisdiction over the state law causes of action "pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367." (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 2.)

28 U.S.C. § 1367 grants district courts supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims "that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution." "Nonfederal

Page 4

claims are part of the same 'case' as federal claims when they 'derive from a common nucleus of operative fact' and are such that a plaintiff 'would ordinarily be expected to try them in one judicial proceeding.'" Trs. of Constr. Indus. & Laborers Health & Welfare Trust v. Desert Valley Landscape & Maint., Inc., 333 F.3d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545, 549 (1989); cf. Lyon v. Whisman, 45 F.3d 758, 761 (3rd Cir. 1995) ("we have refused to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims totally unrelated to a cause of action under federal law").

Here, the nonfederal claims asserted against defendants Rudnitskiy, Bogatova, and Bogatov, ("individual defendants"), concern different alleged wrongs, are asserted against different defendants, involve different evidence, and different witnesses than the federal claim asserted against defendant Discover. In this regard, the nonfederal claims asserted against the individual defendants concern the individual defendants' alleged conspiracy and fraudulent reporting of unauthorized use of credit cards. The federal claim asserted against defendant Discover, however, concerns Discover's investigation of...