Sewraz v. Nguyen
| Decision Date | 20 January 2011 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 3:08CV90 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
| Parties | CHETANAND KUMAR SEWRAZ, Plaintiff, v. NHON H. NGUYEN, et al., Defendants. |
Chetanand Kumar Sewraz, a federal inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this diversity action against his former attorney Nhon H. Nguyen and Nguyen's law firms ("Nguyen").1 Nguyen moved to dismiss on the ground that Sewraz fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Sewraz responded, and Nguyen replied. The issue is ripe for disposition. For the reasons that follow, Nguyen's Motion to Dismiss will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
"A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of a complaint; importantly, it does not resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses." Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992) (citing 5 A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1356 (1990)). In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations are taken as true and the complaint is viewed in the light most favorable to theplaintiff. Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993); see also Martin, 980 F.2d at 952. This principle only applies to factual allegations, however, and "a court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "require[ ] only 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, ' in order to 'give the defendant fair notice of what the... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) () (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Plaintiffs cannot satisfy this standard with complaints containing only "labels and conclusions" or a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). Instead, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, " id. (citation omitted), stating a claim that is "plausible on its face, " id. at 570, rather than merely "conceivable." Id. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Therefore, in order for a claim or complaint to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, the plaintiff must "allege facts sufficient to state all the elements of [his or] her claim." Bass v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 324 F.3d 761, 765 (4th Cir. 2003) (citing Dickson v. Microsoft Corp., 309 F.3d 193, 213 (4th Cir. 2002); Iodice v. United States, 289 F.3d 270, 281 (4th Cir. 2002)). Lastly, while the Court liberally construes pro se complaints, Gordon v. Leefce, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978), it does not act as the inmate's advocate, sua spontedeveloping statutory and constitutional claims the inmate failed to clearly raise on the face of his complaint. See Brock v. Carroll, 107 F.3d 241, 243 (4th Cir. 1997) (Luttig, J., concurring); Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 115 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).
Sewraz is a citizen of the Republic of Mauritius and a resident of Virginia. (Am. Compl. ¶ 5.) In 2005, Sewraz hired Nguyen, a Virginia attorney, to help Sewraz collect debts from Sewraz's estranged wife, Mariea Gamble-Huynh ("Gamble-Huynh"). (Am. Compl. ¶ 10.) Nguyen agreed to work on a contingency fee basis to recover the funds. (Am. Compl. ¶ 12.) Nguyen filed two warrants in debt against Gamble-Huynh in the General District Court for the County of Henrico (the "General District Court"), one in the amount of $12,500 and one in the amount of $15,000. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 13-15.) "[I]n an attempt to get out of this debt, [Gamble-Huynh] threatened, charmed and worked her way out of the debt." (Am. Compl.¶ 25.) She did so by targeting Nguyen. (Am. Compl. ¶ 25.) Gamble-Huynh "attempted to negotiate a trade [with Nguyen] whereby she would pursue claims against Mr. Sewraz's vehicle, unless [Sewraz] dropped [his] current suits." (Am. Compl, ¶ 27.) Sewraz instructed Nguyen not to negotiate with Gamble-Huynh unless the deal involved Sewraz's complete recovery. (Am. Compl. ¶ 28.)
Nguyen then began an "extra-professional relationship" with Gamble-Huynh. (Am. Compl. ¶ 19.) This relationship included "lengthy chat[s]." (Am. Compl. ¶ 29; Am. Compl. ¶¶ 26-28.) During one of these chats, the details of which were revealed to Sewraz by Nguyen, Gamble-Huynh inquired about Nguyen's nationality. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 29-30, 38.) Nguyen told Gamble-Huynh that he was American, but that both of his parents were from Vietnam. (Am. Compl. ¶30.) Gamble-Huynh, a Vietnamese-American, found common ground with Nguyen's background and "they started talking about various aspects of Vietnamese culture." (Am. Compl. TJ 32; Am. Compl. ¶ 31.) Gamble-Huynh invited Nguyen to a Vietnamese soup house in Richmond to discuss the legal matters between Gamble-Huynh and Sewraz. (Am. Compl. ¶ 33.) Nguyen declined, but the conversation continued. (Am. Compl. ¶ 35.) Gamble-Huynh asked Nguyen about his marital status; Nguyen told her that he was single. (Am. Compl, ¶ 36.) The two "talked at length about dating." (Am. Compl. ¶ 36.) Gamble-Huynh asked Nguyen "whether he had a 'cute butt, '" at which point the conversation ended. (Am. Compl. ¶ 37.)
Nguyen "appeared very taken with Ms. Gamble" and Nguyen asked Sewraz whether Sewraz would consider dropping his suit against Gamble-Huynh. (Am. Compl. ¶ 38.) Sewraz chided Nguyen for talking inappropriately with Gamble-Huynh. (Am. Compl. ¶ 39.) Sewraz told Nguyen that "no negotiations would be entered into unless full recovery was achieved." (Am. Compl. ¶ 39.) Nguyen apologized to Sewraz and promised to fight Gamble-Huynh '"for the sake of men everywhere.'" (Am. Compl. ¶ 40.)
Subsequently, Nguyen "became increasingly distant and less and less interested in winning." (Am. Compl. ¶ 41.) When this occurred, Sewraz asked Nguyen whether he had been engaging in more conversations with Gamble-Huynh. (Am. Compl. ¶ 42.) Nguyen "vigorously denied any such matters, overemphasizing that he was 'not interested in any way with her.'" (Am. Compl. ¶ 42.) Despite this, Sewraz alleges that "[o]n information and belief, Mr. Nguyen and Ms. Gamble did have further conversations, met and had sexual intercourse." (Am. Compl. 143.)
Motivated by this relationship, Nguyen began to abandon Sewraz's case and started working to Sewraz's detriment. (Am. Compl. ¶ 44.) This culminated in Nguyen telling Sewraz that, based on Nguyen's phone conversation with Gamble-Huynh, Gamble-Huynh was "definitely" not going to appear at a court hearing on November 21, 2005, which would result in a default judgment in favor of Sewraz. (Am. Compl. ¶ 17; Am. Compl.¶¶ 18-19.) Nguyen told Sewraz that this hearing was a mere "formality" at which "nothing important would be decided." (Am. Compl. ¶ 23.) Relying on Nguyen's representations, Sewraz did not appear in court on that day and instead relied on Nguyen to represent him. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 19-20, 45.) Gamble-Huynh did appear in court that day, however. (Am. Compl. ¶ 20.) Gamble-Huynh asked the court to set a trial date for January 9, 2006, and Nguyen did not object. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 20, 24.)
Nguyen "was well aware that [January 9, 2006] would not be in the best interests of [Sewraz]" because Sewraz and his "star witness" were planning on leaving the country for a visit home from December 2005 until March 2006. (Am. Compl. ¶ 21.) Sewraz and his wife "had to reschedule their plans, and suffer financially with regards to scheduled flights but more importantly were forced to miss their mother's birthday, at the end of December." (Am. Compl. ¶ 24.) Sewraz appeared at the courthouse on January 9, 2006 as Nguyen instructed him to do. (Am. Compl. ¶ 48.) Unbeknownst to Sewraz, Gamble-Huynh had filed a Motion for Continuance four days earlier. (Am. Compl. ¶ 49.) Upon his arrival at the courthouse, Sewraz learned that the hearing would be on the Motion for Continuance. Nguyen neglected to tell Sewraz that such a motion had been made and failed to provide Sewraz with a copy of the motion. (Am. Compl. ¶ 50.)
At the hearing, the court set a trial date for April 17, 2006, which conflicted with Sewraz's plans. (Am. Compl. ¶ 52.) When Nguyen failed to object to the date, Sewraz himself objected. (Am. Compl. ¶ 53.) The court asked Nguyen to voice any concerns; Nguyen stated that he had none. (Am. Compl. ¶ 54.)
On the same day that Sewraz appeared at the courthouse, January 9, 2006, he was arrested based on complaints filed by Gamble-Huynh. (Am. Compl. ¶ 56.) The charges were dismissed on March 7, 2006. (Am. Compl. ¶ 56.)
On February 6, 2006, without Sewraz's consent or prior knowledge, Nguyen nonsuited Sewraz's legal actions. (Am. Compl. ¶ 57.) Nguyen also drafted and executed a final representation letter, ending his attorney-client relationship with Sewraz. (Am. Compl. ¶ 58, Ex. 4.) Sewraz never received this letter or a copy of the motion for nonsuit because Nguyen sent them to Sewraz's home instead of to the jail where Sewraz was incarcerated. (Am. Compl. ¶ 59, 80.) Instead, he learned...
To continue reading
Request your trial