Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00982/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00982-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Chase Bank
Defendant
Jeffrey Wayne Taylor
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Jeffrey Taylor is preceding pro se in this action for monetary damages against 

Defendant Chase Bank. Plaintiff‟s Complaint alleges Chase Bank committed violations of the DoddFrank Financial Reform Act, Pub.L. 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010) (“Dodd–Frank Act”), the Real 

Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2605 (“RESPA”); and the Truth in Lending Act, 12 

C.F.R. Part 226 (“TILA”). (Doc. 1.) The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 302. 

I. Screening Requirement

Although Plaintiff paid the filing fee, the Court may raise issues such as jurisdiction and 

whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted sua sponte. See Chapman v. Pier 

1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 954 (9th Cir. 2011) (subject matter jurisdiction); Wong v. Bell, 

642 F.2d 359, 361-62 (9th Cir. 1981) (failure to state a claim). The Court must dismiss a complaint or 

portion thereof if the plaintiff has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is 

immune from such relief. Id. If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, leave to 

JEFFREY WAYNE TAYLOR,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CHASE BANK,

Defendant.

/

Case No. 1: 13-cv-00982-AWI-BAM

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S 

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Case 1:13-cv-00982-AWI-BAM Document 2 Filed 03/17/14 Page 1 of 4
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

amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. 

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

In determining whether a complaint states a claim, the Court looks to the pleading standard 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Under Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a short and 

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

"[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require „detailed factual allegations,‟ but it 

demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). 

To survive screening, Plaintiff‟s claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient 

factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th 

Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts 

that are merely consistent with a defendant‟s liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility 

standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

II. Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff‟s Complaint consists of four short paragraphs: 

1. I am filing this case in federal courts due to violations of requirements in the 

Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act, Public Law 111-203, Section 1463. 

2. Plaintiff, Jeffrey Wayne Taylor resides at 5245 Swindon Road, Rocklin, Placer, 

CA 95765, (559) 647-0095. The property that is the subject of this complaint is 5074 

W. Decatur Ave, Fresno, Fresno, CA, 93722.

3. Defendant, Chase Bank (Corporation) is located at 21 S. Clark Street, Chicago, 

Cook, IL, 60603. 

4. Chase Bank, on three separate occasions was in violation of RESPA and TILA 

time violations. Due to Chase Bank failing to respond to my requests I was forced into 

a short sale of my residence to avoid Chase Bank foreclosing on my residence. I 

believe Chase Bank has evidence of Key Bank being a predatory lender and inflating 

the value of my residence in order to approve a lien on my residence. I am now unable 

to obtain a mortgage until February 2015. 

Case 1:13-cv-00982-AWI-BAM Document 2 Filed 03/17/14 Page 2 of 4
3

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

(Doc. 1.) The remainder of Plaintiff‟s complaint requests statutory damages and damages stemming 

from various payments made to Chase Bank, Washington Mutual Bank, Wells Fargo Bank, and Key 

Bank. Id. 

III. Discussion

A. Plaintiff’s Complaint Fails to Comply with Rule 8

Plaintiff‟s complaint does not contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that 

the he is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Simply put, Plaintiff‟s Complaint does not allege 

any specific conduct that could plausibly give rise to a viable cause of action. For example, Plaintiff 

does not state facts to support his claim that, “on three separate occasions,” Chase Bank violated 

RESPA and TILA. Plaintiff states Chase Bank failed to respond to his requests, but Plaintiff does not 

state what the requests were, how the requests were made, why Chase Bank was required to respond to 

these requests or what a response to these requests should have entailed -- to name just a few relevant 

inquiries. Plaintiff failed to set forth sufficient factual matter to support a claim for relief. Legal 

conclusions are not sufficient to state a claim. 

Moreover, Plaintiff does not set forth facts indicating that “making a request” of any kind 

implicates the Dodd-Frank Act, RESPA or TILA. Plaintiff does not explain what provisions of the 

Dodd-Frank Act, RESPA or TILA Chase Bank violated, nor does Plaintiff identify conduct that 

implicates those statutes. Similarly, Plaintiff does not explain how non-defendant Key Bank‟s status as 

a “predatory lender,” or Key Bank‟s efforts to “inflat[e] the value of [his] residence in order to 

approve a lien on [his] residence” fits within any of the statutory schemes alleged or otherwise 

implicates Chase Bank. Additionally, Plaintiff‟s damage request to recover seemingly random 

payments to non-defendant banks is untethered to any factual or legal allegations.

Generally, the Court is lenient and liberally construes pro se pleadings. However, Plaintiff‟s 

complaint must give the defendant fair notice of Plaintiff‟s claim or claims. Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Plaintiff‟s Complaint fails to articulate a single claim for relief and is so 

lacking in factual allegations that there is no discernible cause of action to be inferred. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff‟s Complaint fails to provide “fair notice” of the claims being asserted and the “grounds upon 

which [they] rest.” Yamaguchi v. United States Dep't of the Air Force, 109 F.3d 1475, 1481 (9th 

Case 1:13-cv-00982-AWI-BAM Document 2 Filed 03/17/14 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Cir.1997). 

Plaintiff‟s complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend because it fails to allege facts 

sufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff will be granted leave to revise his 

complaint to allege facts sufficient to support a cognizable claim. Plaintiff may not change the nature 

of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in the first amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 

605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). If Plaintiff chooses to amend, the Court will require Plaintiff to identify each 

separate claim under separate and readily identifiable headings. Plaintiff must enumerate each separate 

claim as “First Claim for Relief,” “Second Claim for Relief” “Third Claim for Relief,” etc. Under each 

claim for relief, Plaintiff must provide a short and plain statement of the facts relevant to that 

particular claim.

Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes all prior complaints, Forsyth v. 

Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997), aff’d, 525 U.S. 299 (1999), and must be 

“complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” Local Rule 220. “All 

causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are 

waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567; accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff‟s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim;

2. If Plaintiff chooses to amend, Plaintiff‟s amended complaint must be filed within thirty 

(30) days from the date of service of this order;

3. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, the Court will recommend that this 

action be dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00982-AWI-BAM Document 2 Filed 03/17/14 Page 4 of 4