United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Defendant's motion to
dismiss (Dkt. No. 7). Having thoroughly considered the
parties' briefing and the relevant record, the Court
finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby GRANTS
Defendant's motion (Dkt. No. 7) for the reasons explained
Donte McClellon (“McClellon”) alleges that
Defendant Capital One Bank (“Capital One”) is
liable for a series of fraudulent transactions from
Plaintiff's checking account in 2017 and 2018. (Dkt. No.
1-1.) In his three-page complaint, McClellon makes the
following allegations against Capital One:
This is an action under the Uniform Commercial Code (4.22.005
to 925) and Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW
19.86.020, based upon Defendant's blatant self-dealing
and other intentional negligent misconduct in conversion,
freezing, pooling, otherwise manipulating Plaintiff's
funds without Plaintiff's authorization.
Plaintiff further allege that the Defendant breached the
contract, failed to comply with Regulation E and committed
the tort of negligence in the handling of Plaintiff's
funds. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and all other
damages (i.e., direct and consequential damages) allowed by
law, and payment of costs and attorneys' fees.
On or about September 30th 2017, Plaintiff opened
an checking account with Defendant.
Plaintiff timely filed his good faith Regulation E claims
with Defendant but the Defendant failed to protect the
checking account in subject, provisional credit the Plaintiff
and have those funds be accessible to him.
The fraudulent transactions at issue that took place in the
checking in subject are $3, 300 at Bank of America, $1, 75.86
at W FT Lauderdale respectively posted on January
22nd, 2018. And another series of fraudulent
transactions from SQC Square Cash for $400, $250, $100, $400
posted on January 16th, 2018. And other fraudulent
SQC transactions: $100 (January 26th, 2018), $200
(January 28th, 2018), $125 (January
29th, 2018), $125 (January 29th, 2018),
$400 (December 31st, 2017), $300 (December
28th, 2017), $100 (December 28th,
2017), $466 (December 3rd, 2017), $63 (November
16th, 2017), and $32 (November 2nd,
Regulation E states that a provisional credit must be
provided within 10 business days.
(Id. at 1-2.) McClellon originally filed his
complaint in King County Superior Court. (Id. at 1.)
On June 21, 2018, Capital One removed the case to this
Court. (Dkt. No. 1.) On June 28, 2018, Capital
One filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted (Dkt. No. 7).
McClellon has not responded to the motion.
Legal Standard for Motion to Dismiss
defendant may move for dismissal when a plaintiff
“fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). To survive a motion to
dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is
plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 677-78 (2009). 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. Id. at 678. Although the
Court must accept as true a complaint's well-pleaded
facts, conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted
inferences will not defeat an otherwise proper Rule 12(b)(6)
motion. Vasquez v. L.A. Cty., 487 F.3d 1246, 1249
(9th Cir. 2007). A plaintiff is obligated to provide grounds
for her entitlement to relief that amount to more than labels
and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of
a cause of action. Bell Atl. Corp. v. ...