Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Rough v. Bank

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

May 15, 2019

DOUGLAS H. ROUGH, Plaintiff,
CHASE BANK, et al., Defendant.


          Honorable Richard A. Jones, United States District Judge.


         This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Barclays Bank Delaware's (“Barclays”) motion to dismiss. Dkt. # 41. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion.


         Plaintiff alleges that he was offered employment by Defendant MC Medical AG in September 2017. Dkt. # 1 at 9. He claims the company told him that if he passed a series of training tests, a permanent job offer would follow on November 1, 2017. Id. The alleged agreement between Plaintiff and MC Medical AG would pay him $2, 500 for the training and did not prevent him from working elsewhere during the training period. Id.

         On October 11, 2017, Plaintiff claims MC Medical AG asked him to purchase equipment and agreed to transfer money to his Chase credit card to cover the transaction. Id. Plaintiff states that he was unfamiliar with this type of transfer and called Chase. Id. He claims to have asked Chase whether the transfer to his account could be reversed. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Chase told him the transfer could not be reversed after 24 hours without a court order. Id.

         Plaintiff alleges that he received a Chase account number from MC Medical AG and executed the money transfer to his Chase credit card. Id. After waiting 24 hours, Plaintiff alleges that he purchased the equipment on his credit card. Id. Plaintiff claims he was then approached by another company, Defendant ALN. Id. at 10. He alleges that ALN asked him to execute a transaction for equipment like the one he completed with MC Medical AG. Id. Based on his experience with the Chase transfer, Plaintiff alleges he essentially conducted the same transaction with ALN-this time he received a Wells Fargo account number, transferred money to his Barclaycard, and purchased equipment for ALN. Id.

         Plaintiff claims that after three weeks, the money transfers to both his Chase credit card and his Barclaycard were reversed. Id. Plaintiff states that he is a victim of fraud. Id. He brings this action claiming, in part, that defendant banks are complicit in financial fraud schemes by not taking affirmative actions to stop it. Id. at 11. Specifically, he claims the fraud here would not have been possible without advice from Chase and could have been stopped with simple authentication measures. Id. He seeks in damages the cost of the fraud, the cost to investigate, the interest charged by the banks, and future lost wages. Id.


         Rule 12(b)(6) permits a court to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim. The rule requires the court to assume the truth of the complaint's factual allegations and credit all reasonable inferences arising from those allegations. Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 910 (9th Cir. 2007). A court “need not accept as true conclusory allegations that are contradicted by documents referred to in the complaint.” Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). The plaintiff must point to factual allegations that “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007). If the plaintiff succeeds, the complaint avoids dismissal if there is “any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint” that would entitle the plaintiff to relief. Id. at 563; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).

         A court typically cannot consider evidence beyond the four corners of the complaint, although it may rely on a document to which the complaint refers if the document is central to the party's claims and its authenticity is not in question. Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir. 2006). A court may also consider evidence subject to judicial notice. United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003).


         A. Untimeliness

         Curiously, Barclays fails to address why it submits this motion to dismiss almost six month after being served with the summons and complaint. Nevertheless, despite Barclays's blatant failure to follow federal procedure, the Court finds that resolving the instant motion to dismiss on the merits is the appropriate course of action. Resolution on the merits, including consideration of the untimely motion to dismiss, is more likely to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of this case and therefore advance the goals of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1; see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 ...

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.