Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04472/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04472-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OLANAPO AD OLAJIDE,

Plaintiff,

v.

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-04472-MMC 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' 

MOTIONS TO DISMISS; DISMISSING 

AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND; VACATING HEARING

Re: Dkt. Nos. 19, 21, 23

Before the Court are three motions: (1) "Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint 

or, in the Alternative, Motion for More Definite Statement," filed October 11, 2016, by 

defendant Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco ("FRB");1(2) "Motion to Dismiss 

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint or for a More Definite Statement," filed October 11, 2016, 

by defendant Bank of America, N.A. ("BANA"); and (3) "Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's 

Amended Complaint or for a More Definite Statement," filed October 11, 2016, by 

defendant Compass Bank ("Compass"). On October 17, 2016, plaintiff Olanapo Ad 

Olajide ("Olajide") filed a "Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Amended Complaint,"

 

1

In its motion, FRB explains that there are twelve separate Federal Reserve Banks 

and correctly notes that, although Olijade's initial complaint had asserted claims against 

all twelve, the AC only asserts claims against one such entity, the Federal Reserve Bank 

of San Francisco. To the extent there may be an ambiguity, the Court finds Olijade is no 

longer proceeding against any Federal Reserve Bank other than the Federal Reserve 

Bank of San Francisco. See Bullen v. De Bretteville, 239 F.2d 824, 833 (9th Cir. 1956)

(holding "amended pleading supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as 

non-existent"), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 947 (1957).

Case 3:16-cv-04472-MMC Document 31 Filed 11/04/16 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

which filing the Court construes as opposition to the instant motions.2 On November 1, 

2016, FRB filed a reply. Having read and considered the parties' respective written 

submissions, the Court deems the matters suitable for decision thereon, VACATES the 

hearing scheduled for November 18, 2016, and hereby GRANTS the motions, as follows.

Although the amended complaint ("AC") identifies a number of constitutional 

provisions, statutes and regulations, the AC includes no facts to support a claim under 

any of the identified authorities or other law. Rather, the AC essentially consists of 

conclusory assertions lacking any explanatory factual support (see, e.g., AC ¶ 38 

(alleging Olajide "ha[sn't] actually profited from any of the securities belonging to [him], 

received, appropriated or deposited with [defendants]); ¶ 43 (alleging defendants "are 

maintaining a lien on either [Olajide's] trade/legal name(s) or securities owned by [him] 

and or appurtenant to [his] trade/legal name(s)")), which assertions are insufficient as a 

matter of law to state a cognizable claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 

(2009) (holding complaint subject to dismissal where it lacks “sufficient factual matter” to 

support conclusions); see also Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) 

(holding "allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative 

level").

Accordingly, the AC is hereby DISMISSED. Should Olajide wish to amend for 

purposes of alleging facts to support any legal claims he seeks to assert against 

defendants, Olajide shall file his Second Amended Complaint no later than November 23, 

2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 4, 2016

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

 

2Olajide failed to provide the Court with a chambers copy of said filing. 

Nonetheless, the Court has considered it. For future reference, Olajide is reminded that, 

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(e)(7) and the Court's Standing Orders, parties are 

required to provide for use in chambers one paper copy of each document that is filed 

electronically.

Case 3:16-cv-04472-MMC Document 31 Filed 11/04/16 Page 2 of 2