The pa pers c onsidered by

the Court in connec tion with thi s motion i nclude: 1 plaintiff’s Clarifie d Amendment to Orig inal Complaint (“Am. Compl.”); plaintiff’s Notice of Proof of Da

mag es (“ Proof of Da

mag es”) ; Cit ibank’s Motion for Summary J udg ment (“Mot.”) ; pla int if f’ s O pp os iti on

to M oti on

fo r S umm ary

Judg me nt ( “ Op p. ” ); and

Citi ba nk ’s Re ply

to Opposition to Mot ion for Summary J udg ment (“Rep.” ). UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C OU RT F O R T H E D IS T R IC T O F C O LU M B IA

____________________________________ ) MI CHAEL

B. D ORSEY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Ci vi l A cti on No. 07 -08 85 (P L F) ) AMERI CAN EXPRESS CO., et al., ) ) De fe nd ants
. ) ____________________________________)

MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON The plaintiff, Micha el B . Dorsey , proce edingpr o s e , alleg es that def endant Citi ba nk , N .A ., (“ Citi ba

nk ” ) b re a c he d a

fi du c iary ob lig a tio n to him

by fa ili ngto p ro c e ss t ime ly an online pay

ment to his American E x press a ccount. This matter curr ently is before the Court on Citi bank’s motion for summary judgme nt. Upon car eful c onsideration of the motion, the opposition, t he entire rec ord in this case, a nd the re levant ca se law, the Court will gra nt Citi bank’s motion. 1

I . BA CKGROUND

Michae l Dorsey

was the holde r of a

n Americ an Express cre dit card a ccount (“A ccount” ). On Saturda y , September 30, 2006, Mr . Dorsey ’s son, Mark D orsey , made a n online pay ment from his Citibank checkingacc ount to his father’s A merica n Ex press Ac count in theMic ha e l D or se y ’s so n, Ma rk Do rs e y , h a s n ot j oin e d h is f a the r’ s su it a g a ins t 2 Americ an Express or Citibank.

To deter mine whether

the alleg ations in the complaint satisfy the $75,000 amount 3 in c on tr ov e rs y

re qu ir e me nt f

or div e rs ity jur isd ic tio n, se e 28 U. S.C. § 1 33 2( a ), the Court mus t examine whether

plaintiff’s cla im for damag es is made in g ood faith. See St. Paul Merc ury I nd e mni ty

Co. v. Re d Ca

b Co ., 30 3 U .S. 28 3, 28 8 ( 19 38 ). I f t he Court fi nd s th a t th e c la im i s 2 amou nt o f $ 1, 50 0 ( “ Pay

me nt” ). Se e Mo t., Me mor and um i n Su pp or t ( “ Me m.” ) at 2; se e a lso Mot., Ex . B, A ffidavit of Joan Haslam (“ Haslam Af f.”) ¶ 3. Citibank proce ssed the Pay ment on Monday , October

2, 2006, the next busi ness day . See id. ¶ 4. Micha el Dorse y ’s Amer ican Ex press Ac count was c redited w ith the Pay ment the followingday , October 3, 2006. See Mot., Ex. C, Af fi davit of Am e ri c an E xpre ss C us tod ian ¶ 5. Mr . D or se y

a lle g e s th a t Cit iba

nk fa ile d to timely transfe r the Pay

ment from his son’s bank a ccount to his Acc ount and profited f rom holding the pa

y ment in the interim. He fur ther a lleg es that Citibank’s failure to timely transfe r the Pay ment to his Account re sulted in America n Ex press’s de cision to canc el his cre dit card. See Am. Compl. at 2.

On April 10, 2007, Michae l Dorsey filed a c omplaint in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia ag ainst Citi bank and A merica n Ex press. Americ an Express remove d the

2

c a se to t his Court ba se d o n d ive rs ity

jur isd ic tio n. Se e 28 U. S.C. § 1 44 1( b) . A me ri c an E xpre ss

and Mr . D or se y

have se ttl e d th e ir

dis pute and

Citi ba nk is t he so le re ma ini ngde fe nd ant. Se e Dk t. No . 2 0. Al tho ug h th e ame nd e d c omp la int do e s n ot a sse rt

sp e c if ic c la ims a g a ins t Cit iba

nk , it

a pp e ars that Mi c ha e l D or se y a lle g e s th a t Cit iba

nk (1 ) b re a c he d it s c on tr a c t w ithhim by fa ili ngto proce ss the Pay

ment in a timely

fashion, and ( 2) bre ache d and “c oncea led” a fiduciar y duty owed to him. S ee A m. Compl . at 2. Mr. Dor sey seeks damag es fr om Cit ibank in the amount of $240,000. See Proof of

Damag es at 3. 3made in g ood faith, “the sum claimed by the plaintiff contr ols.” I d. I t must appear to a leg al cer tainty that the claim is for le ss than $75,000 to justi fy dismiss al. I d. at 289. While the Court ha s se ri ou s d ou

bts a s to wh e the r t

he amou nt o f d ama g e s so ug ht b y

Mr . D or se y

is e ve n c los e to b ei n g re as o n ab l e, i tn ee d

n o td et erm i n e w h et h er

th er e i s a l ega l ce rt ai n ty

th at h e c an n o tal l ege more than $75,000 in damag es, bec ause the Court concludes that his claims do not succee d on their merits. 3 I I . STANDARD OF REVI EW Summary judgme nt may

be g rante d if “the ple ading s, the discover y and disclosure materia ls on file, and any aff idavits [ or dec larations] show that there is no ge nuine issue as to any materia l fac t and that the movant is entitled to judgme nt as a matter of law.” F ED . R. C IV . P. 56(c) ; see a lso Anderson v. L iberty L obby , Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986) ; Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889, 895 (D .C. Cir. 2006). “A fa ct is ‘mater ial’ if a dispute ove r it might af fec t the outcome of

a suit under the g overninglaw; fa ctual disputes that ar e ‘irr eleva nt or

unnece ssary ’ do not aff

ect the summar

y judgme nt determination.” H olcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d at 895 (quoting Ander son v. L iberty L obby , Inc., 477 U.S. at 248). An issue is “g enuine” if the evide nce is such that a re asonable jury could re turn a verdic t for the nonmovingparty . See Scott v. Har ris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007); Ander son v. L iberty L obby , I nc., 477 U.S. at 248; Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d at 895. When a motion for summary judgme nt is under consider ation, “the e vidence of the non-mova nt is to be believed, and all justifiable infe renc es ar e to be dr awn in his favor .” Ande rson v. L iberty L obby , Inc., 477 U.S. at 255; see a lso Mastro v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 447 F.3d 843, 849- 50 (D.C. Cir. 2006); Aka v. Washing ton Hospital Center, 156 F .3d 1284, 1288 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ( en banc ); Was hin g ton

Pos t Co . v . U .S. De p’ t of He a lthand

Human Se rv ic e s, 86 5 F .2 d 3 20 , 3 25 (D .C. Cir . 1 98 9) . O n a

mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt, the Court

mus t “ e sc he w m akin g c re dib ili ty4

de te rm inatio ns or

we ig hin g the e vid e nc e .” Cze ka lsk i v. Pe te rs , 4 75 F .3 d 3 60 , 3 63 (D .C. Cir. 2007). The nonmoving party ’s opposition, however, must consist of more than mere unsupported alleg ations or denials a nd must be supported by

aff idavits, declar ations or other competent e vidence , setting f orth specif

ic fa cts showing that there is a g enuine issue f or trial. F ED . R. C IV . P. 56 (e ); Ce lot e x Cor p. v. Catr e tt, 47 7 U .S. 31 7, 32 4 ( 19 86 ). He is r e qu ir e d to provide e vidence that would permit a re asonable jury to find in his favor. L aning ham v. United State s N avy , 8 13 F .2 d 1 23 6, 12 42 (D .C. Cir . 1 98 7) . I f t he no nmo va

nt’ s e vid e nc e is “ me re ly colora ble” or “not sig nificantly

probative,” summary

judgme nt may

be g rante d. Ander son v. L iberty L obby , I nc., 477 U.S. at 249-50; see Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. at 380 (“ [W ]here the r ecor d take n a s a wh ole c ou ld n ot l e a d a

ratio na l tr ie r o f f

a c t to fi nd

fo r t he no n- mov ingpa

rt y , th e re is ‘no g enuine issue f

or trial.’” ) (quotingMatsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Ze nith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)). To de feat a motion for summary judgme nt, a plaintiff must have more than “ a scintilla of evide nce to support his cla ims.” Fre edman v. MCI Telec ommunications Corp., 255 F.3d 840, 845 ( D.C. Cir. 2001).

Be cau s e p l ai n t i ff

i s p ro ce ed i n g pro se, the Court re vie ws his fi lin g s und e r “ le ss stringe nt standards than f ormal plea dings [or leg al brief s] drafted by

lawy ers,” Chandler v. W.E. Welch & A ssociates, Inc., 533 F . Supp. 2d 94, 102 (D.D.C. 2008) (quotingHaines v. K erne r , 404 U.S. 519, 520, (1972)), a

nd, when ne cessa

ry , “examine[s] other plea dings to unde rstand the

n a tu r e an d b a s is o f [p la inti f f ’ s ] pr o s e c la ims .” Gr ay

v. Poo le , 275 F.3d 1113, 1115 ( D.C. Cir. 2002).Citi bank also a rgues that Michae l Dorsey lacks standingto bring this action 4 be c a us e he fi le d th e c omp la int in h is i nd ivi du a l c a

pa c ity wh ile the c re dit

c ard a t is su e is a business cre dit card in the na me of “ Michae l B. Dor sey , Dorsey & A ssoc., Inc.” See Mot. at 2, 11 -1 2. Ne ith e r p art

y ha s g ive n th e Cou

rt su ff ic ie nt e vid e nc e to d e te rm ine wh a t th e re latio ns hip betwee n Mr. Dorse y

and Dor sey

& A ssociates is and whe ther this relationship gives Mr. Dor sey standing to sue based on the fac ts alleg ed in this case. F or the purpose of the c urre nt motion, t he Court wi ll a ssume that Mr . D or se y ha s st and ing . B e c a

us e it f ind s th a t hi s c la ims have no me ri t, it need not re solve the standingquestion. 5 I I I . DI SCUS SI ON A. Br e ac h o

f Co ntrac t Cla im 4 Michae l Dorsey

alleg es that Citibank brea ched a contra ct with him when Citibank failed to proc ess the Pay

ment from Mar

k Dorsey ’s che ckingacc ount to Michael Dorse y ’s Am e ri c an E xpre ss A c c ount i n a tim e ly mann e r. To pr e va il o n a br e a c h o f c on tr a c t c la im, plaintiff must demonstrate that a contra ct exist ed, that plaintiff pe rfor med his contrac tual obligations, that defenda

nt brea ched the contra ct, and that plaintiff suf fer ed dama g es due to the brea ch. See G ree nwich Ins. Co. v. I ce Contrs., Inc., 541 F . Supp. 2d 327, 333 (D.D.C. 2008). Michae l Dorsey

was not a pa

rty to the online Pay

ment transac tion between Mr . Dorsey ’s son, Mark Dor sey , and Citibank, nor is there e vidence that Michae l Dorsey had an a ccount at Citi bank. Micha el Dorse y has fa iled to provide the Court with any evidenc e of a

valid contra ct betwee n himself and Citibank.

I n addition, even if Micha el Dorse y had shown that he was in a c ontrac tual relationship wit h Citi bank, the online Pay ment by Mr. Dorse y ’s son was timely . Citi bank’s p o l i c i e s an d

p r o c e d u r e s f o r o n l i n e b an k i n g s t a t e s th ati f ano n l i n e p aym e n tf

a l l s o na S a tur d ay, Citi bank will take the mone y out of the ac count and e lectronic ally transmit it to t he payee on the next bus iness day . See Ha slam Aff. ¶ 6. Be cause the Pay

ment was made on a Saturda y , Citi bankMr . D or se y argue s th a t he e sta

bli sh e d th a t Cit iba

nk ow e d h im a

fi du c iary duty 5 when “ Citi bank unsucc essfully proff ere d that in a motion to dis miss at the outset of this case . . .” See Opp. at 2. Cit ibank pre viously filed a motion to dismis s for fa ilure to state a c laim or, in the alternative, for a

more de finite statement conc erningMr. Dorse y ’s alleg ations that Citi bank brea ched a

fiduciar y obligation owed to him. The Court denied the motion to dismis s, but or de re d M r. Do rs e y

to f ile an ame nd e d c omp la int . Se e Me mor and um O pin ion

and Or de r, Dk

t. No. 12 at 1 (Aug . 2, 2007). Mr. Dor sey has misunderstood the Court’s denia l of Citibank’s motion to di smiss as the Court acknowledg ing that Cit ibank owed a fiduciar y duty to him. The 6 proce ssed the Pay

ment timely

on the next busi ness day , which wa s a Monday . This action was consistent with any

contra ct that exist ed. The Court will enter summar y judgme nt in favor of Citi ba nk on Mr . D or se y ’s br e a c h o f c on tr a c t c la im.

B. Br e ac h o

f F idu c iar yDu ty Cla im To pr e va il o n a

c la im f or br e a c h o f f

idu c iary duty , a pla int if f m us t pr ov e fa c ts

s u f f i c i e n tt o e s t a

b l i s ht h e f

o l l o w i n g : ( 1 ) th e d e f

e n d an to w e d

p l a i n t i f f a f i d u c i ar y d u ty; (2) de fenda

nt brea ched that duty ; and (3) the brea ch proximately cause d an injury . See Paul v. J udicial Watch, Inc., 543 F . Supp. 2d 1, 5-6 (D.D.C. 2008). While the mere exis tence of a contra ct ty

pically does not cre ate a

fiduciar y duty , a fiduc iary

relationship m ay

exis t “wher e circ umstances show that the parties e x tended their relationship bey ond the limits of the contra ctual oblig ations to a relationship founded upon trust and conf idence .” I d. at 6. Ac c or din g to M r. Do rs e y , Ci tib ank br e a c he d a

nd “ c on c e a le d” a

fi du c iary duty wh e n Ci tib ank

fa ile d to make a

tim e ly tr ans fe r o f t

he Pay me nt t o h is A c c ount, late r l e a din g to Americ an Express’s dec ision to cance l the Acc ount. See Am. Compl. at 2. Cit ibank ar g ues that it had no fiduciar

y duty to Michael Dor sey , and ther efor e could not have brea ched a fiduciar y duty . Citi bank points out that the parties to the online Pay ment transac tion were Mr. Dorse y ’s son, Mark Dor sey , and Citibank, not Michae l Dorsey . See Mem. at 7. Mr. Dorse y has made no 5Court did not rule on whether a fiduc iary

duty exis ted; rathe r, the Court g ave Mr . Dorsey an opportunity

to clarify his vag ue complaint. Rule 11 require s the party reque sting sanc tions to file a separ ate “ motion from any 6 other motion descr ibing the spe cific c onduct that alleg edly violates Rule 11(b).” F ED . R. C IV . P. 11( C )(2) . Citi bank did not file a se parate motion from its mot ion for summary judgme nt. 7 alleg ations that would support his argument that a fiduc iary relationship ex isted betwee n him and Citi bank. The re is no basis fr om which to conclude that Citi bank owe d Mr. Dorse y a fiduc iary duty

. Even if Mr. D orsey wer e to establish a f

iduciary duty betwee n himself and Citi bank, ther e is no basis from whic h to conclude that Cit ibank bre ache d that duty . As discussed above , Citi bank proc essed the Pay ment timely . Mr. Dorse y argues that “ba

nks stringe ntly

punish customers bec ause of one day late pay ments, reg ardle ss of wee kends . . .” a nd that Citi bank should be he ld to the same standar d. See Opp. at 2, 6. Whi le Mr. Dor sey disag ree s with Cit ibank’s online bankingpolicies, the undisputed fa cts show that Citibank proce ssed the pay

ment in a timely

fashion as de fined by

its own policies. The Court will enter

summa ry jud g me nt i n f

avo r o f C iti ba

nk on Mr . D or se y ’s br e a c h o f f idu c iary duty c la im.

C. Cit ibank’s Re quest for Rule 11 Sanctions Against Mr. Dorsey Citi ba nk ha s mo ve d f

or sa nc tio ns un de r R

ule 11 of the F e de ra l Ru le s o f C ivi l Procedur e, alleg ing that Mr. Dorsey ’s claim is frivolous. See Mot. at 12. Rule 11 re quires that an attorne y

or unre prese nted par

ty cer tify that his or her c laim is not frivolous. S ee F ED . R. C IV . P. 11 (b). “ The Court has discr etion to decide whether a Rule 11 violation has occ urre d and what sanctions should be imposed if there has bee n a violation.” L ong v. Dep’ t of J ustice, 207 F .R.D. 4, 6 (D.D.C. 2002); see also F ED . R. C IV . P. 11 (c) (1). Although the Court questions the manner 6Be cause the Court will deny Citi bank’s motion for Rule 11 sanc tions, the Court need not consider whether

Citi bank’s pr ocedur al er

ror is fatal to its m otion. 8 in which Mr. Dor sey

investigated and pr osecute d his claims, the Court acknowle dg es that Mr. Dorsey is a pr o s e plaintiff who lac ks the trainingpossessed by a license d attorney . There fore , the Court wi ll e xer c ise its dis c re tio n to de ny Citi ba nk ’s re qu e st f

or Rul e 11 sa

nc tio ns . I V. CONCLUSI ON For the re asons set for

th above, the Court will g rant Citibank’s Motion for Summary J udg ment and will deny

Citi bank’s Motion for Rule 11 sa nctions. An Orde r consistent

w i t ht h i s M e m o r an d

u mO p i n i o nw i l l i s s u e th i s s am e d ay.

/s/_____________________ PAULL . FRI EDMAN Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ct J u d ge DATE: January

29, 2010