Warren v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Chi. & Nancy Brzezinski
| Decision Date | 18 July 2018 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-cv-13256 |
| Parties | DASHONTA D. WARREN, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CHICAGO AND NANCY BRZEZINSKI, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Plaintiff Dashonta D. Warren, proceeding pro se, initiated this action against Defendants Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago and Nancy Brzezinski on August 31, 2017, in the Third Judicial Circuit Court in Wayne County, Michigan, asserting state-law claims of breach of trust, breach of contract, and breach of trust with fraudulent intent. (Docket no. 1-3 at 1.) Defendant Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago removed the case to this court on October 4, 2017, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), and 12 U.S.C. § 632.1 (Docket no. 1.)
Sanctions (docket no. 23).2 Plaintiff filed an untimely Response to Defendant's Motions.3 (Docket no. 32.) This matter has been referred to the undersigned for all pretrial purposes. (Docket no. 9.) The undersigned has reviewed the pleadings, dispenses with a hearing pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(f)(2), and issues this Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
For the reasons that follow, it is recommended that Defendant Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago's Motion to Dismiss (docket no. 2) be GRANTED; Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Brzezinski be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Defendant Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago's Motion to Vacate Post-Removal State Court Writ of Garnishment and for Sanctions be GRANTED IN PART as set forth herein; and this matter be DISMISSED in its entirety. Accordingly, it is also recommended Plaintiff's Motions (docket nos. 7, 12, 20, 25, 26, 28, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 41, and 43) be DENIED as moot.
The facts and circumstances of Plaintiff's claims in this matter are not readily apparent. As Defendant Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago points out, the Complaint with which it was served is not the same as the Complaint that Plaintiff filed in the state court. (Compare docket no. 1-2 at 3 with docket no. 1-3 at 1.) Nevertheless, the Complaints will be read together, for the sole purpose of resolving the instant Motions.
From what this Court can discern, it appears that Plaintiff is suing Defendants for breach of trust, breach of contract, and breach of trust with fraudulent intent on the basis that Defendants allegedly failed to perform in accordance with the terms of a $50 million promissory note, which was purportedly executed by the parties on July 23, 2017. Plaintiff describes this promissory note in the state-court Complaint as follows:
(Docket no. 1-3 at 1.) Plaintiff seeks $300,000,000 in damages.
Defendant Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago moves to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 12(b)(6). (Docket no. 2.) When deciding a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must "construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept its allegations as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff." Directv, Inc. v. Treesh, 487 F.3d 471, 476 (6th Cir. 2007); Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp., 281 F.3d 613, 619 (6th Cir. 2002). The plaintiff must provide "'a short and plain statement of the claim' that will give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). But this statement "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The plaintiff cannot rely on "legal conclusions" or "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action;" instead, the plaintiff must plead "factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). This "facial plausibility" is required to "unlock the doors of discovery." Id. To make this determination, the Iqbal Court set out the following two-step analysis:
[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. While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a courtshould assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.
"When a court is presented with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, it may consider the Complaint and any exhibits attached thereto, public records, items appearing in the record of the case and exhibits attached to defendant's motion to dismiss so long as they are referred to in the Complaint and are central to the claims contained therein." Bassett v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 528 F.3d 426, 430 (6th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).
Defendant Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago asserts that the court should dismiss all of Plaintiff's claims with prejudice because Plaintiff's Complaint(s) fails to satisfy the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Docket no. 2 at 16-21.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires that a complaint include "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Defendant argues that Plaintiff's Complaint(s) fails to satisfy these requirements because (1) it is impossible to determine whether the Complaint served upon Defendant or the Complaint filed with the state court is the operative Complaint in this matter, although both Complaints suffer from the same fatal defects; (2) Plaintiff's Complaint(s) does not specify which claims are brought against which defendants; and (3) there are no factual or legal allegations to support the Complaint(s). (Docket no. 2 at 16-17.) Defendant also argues that Plaintiff's claims must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) because the purported promissory note conclusively disproves Plaintiff's claims, and Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to support a plausible claim. (Id. at 18-21.) Each of Defendant's arguments holds merit.
The Complaint Plaintiff served upon Defendant consists of three long, incoherent paragraphs regarding the promissory note at issue, one of which appears to be an excerpt from the promissory note itself. (Docket no. 1-2 at 3.) Plaintiff's state-court Complaint consists of the above-cited description of the promissory note. (Docket no. 1-3 at 1.) Also, both Complaints list the same four claims against Defendants, in the following manner:
(Docket no. 1-2 at 3; docket no. 1-3 at 1.) But that is the extent of Plaintiff's Complaints. They are devoid of any coherent factual or legal allegations to support the claims therein; notably, the Complaints do not contain any specific allegations of fraud. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Complaints do not meet the basic pleading standard of providing Defendants with fair notice of what the claim is. See Conley, supra.
Moreover, each of the above-listed claims fails on its face. For example, Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.8302 does not create a right of action; it merely provides the circumstances under which the State of Michigan's district courts have equitable jurisdiction and authority concurrent with that of the State of Michigan's circuit courts. Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.7901(a) does not exist. Also, Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5807 provides the applicable period of limitations for breach of contract claims; it does not create a right of action for breach of contract. Additionally, Plaintiff purports to bring his claim for breach of trust with fraudulent intent under South Carolina statutory law, S.C. Code Ann. § 16-13-230, without any valid basis for doing so. Plaintiff therefore cannot state a claim under these statutes.
Nevertheless, in recognition of its responsibility to liberally construe the pleadings of pro se plaintiffs and hold them to a less stringent standard than similar pleadings drafted byattorneys, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hahn v. Star Bank, 190 F.3d 708, 715 (6th Cir. 1999), the Court will review Plaintiff's Complaints under the applicable state law. Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.7901(1) provides that "[a] violation by a trustee of a duty the trustee owes to a trust beneficiary is a breach of trust." Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.7901(1). And "[t]o state a breach of contract claim under Michigan law, a plaintiff must first establish the elements of a valid contract." In re Brown, 342 F.3d 620, 628 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Pawlak v. Redox Corp., 182 Mich. App. 758, 453 N.W.2d 304, 307 (1990)). "The elements of a valid contract in Michigan are 1) parties competent to contract, 2) a...
To continue reading
Request your trial