United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
DOUGLAS H. ROUGH, Plaintiff,
CHASE BANK, et al., Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE'S MOTION TO
Honorable Richard A. Jones, United States District Judge.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
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).
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 ...