Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McClellon v. Capital One, N.A.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

July 25, 2018

DONTE MCCLELLON, Plaintiff,
v.
CAPITAL ONE, N.A., Defendant.

          ORDER

          JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This 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 herein.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff 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, 2017).
Regulation E states that a provisional credit must be provided within 10 business days.[1]

(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.[2] (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.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Legal Standard for Motion to Dismiss

         A 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. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.