the arguments made in its co-defendants’ motions to dismiss and the
conclusions in my earlier order. That motion is GRANTED.

On a motion to dismiss, I accept all well-pleaded allegations
in the complaint as true, and grant the motion only if the
plaintiff can prove no set of facts to support her claim. Thompson
v. Ill. Dep’t of Prof. Regulation, 300 F.3d 750, 753 (7th Cir.
2002). However, a plaintiff can plead herself out of court by
pleading facts that undermine the allegations set forth in her
complaint. McCormick v. City of Chicago, 230 F.3d 319, 325 (7th
Cir. 2000). Most of the counts in the complaint allege acts by “the
defendants”; however, I have attempted to distinguish which counts
complain of acts by FCNB.

Counts I (unlawful arrest), II (false imprisonment), and III
(conspiracy to violate Ms. Prince’s civil rights), are alleged
against all defendants under the theory that all defendants
conspired in a grand scheme against Ms. Prince. To state a
conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a private actor
such as FCNB, a plaintiff must allege that: 1) state officials and
private individuals reached an understanding to deprive her of her
constitutional rights; and 2) the private actors were willful
participants in joint activity with the state or its agents.
Hanania v. Loren-Maltese, 212 F.3d 353, 356 (7th Cir. 2000).
However, a vague and conclusory allegation that a conspiracy

existed is not sufficient to state a claim; a complaint must


false report to that effect to the Illinois Department of Central
Management Services (“CMS”), which policed the 100 W. Randolph
building where Chicago Motor was located. Mr. Dalliman gave CMS and
its employee, defendant John Day, Ms. Prince’s membership and
eredit card information. Mr. Day then concocted a false charge of
credit card fraud and circulated it to a number of people,
including her employer, defendant H&R Block Tax Services (“Block”).
Defendants Steve Hardy and Rebecca Emigholz, managers at Block
gave Mr. Day Ms. Prince’s confidential employee file and work
schedule. Mr. Day then called FCNB to report the false charge of
credit card fraud, preventing Ms. Prince from accessing her bank
account.

Next, Mr. Day, defendant and CMS employee Jesse Harris,
defendant and Block employee Doris Doe, Mr. Hardy, and Ms. Emigholz
agreed to kidnap Ms. Prince from a tax class she was teaching. She
was removed from the class at 203 N. LaSalle in Chicago and taken
to the 100 W. Randolph building. There, she was arrested and
imprisoned. At a preliminary hearing on the felony charges, a
finding of no probable cause was entered. On July 24, 2003, Ms.
Prince filed this suit seeking financial restitution from the
various defendants. Several defendants moved to dismiss the claims
against them, and I granted those motions in my order of April 13,

2004. Now FCNB moves to dismiss all claims against it, relying on


contain factual allegations suggesting that defendants reached a
meeting of the minds. Ryan v. Mary Immaculate Queen Ctr., 188 F.3d
857, 860 (7th Cir. 1999) (dismissing a conspiracy charge where the
complaint included only a bare allegation and failed to specify how
or when the defendants allegedly reached an agreement, its terms,
or its scope). Furthermore, these claims are time-barred by the
two-year statute of limitations governing § 1983 actions, which
began to run, at the latest, on the date of Ms. Prince’s arrest and
confinement, July 17, 2001. Booker v. Ward, 94 F.3d 1052, 1056 (7th
Cir, 1996).

In Counts V, VI, VII, and VIII, Ms. Prince alleges breach of
contract and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing
against FCNB, and seeks special damages against it. In Count XVIII,
she alleges intentional infliction of emotional distress. Such
claims sound, if at all, solely in state law. The failure of the
federal claims deprives this court of subject-matter jurisdiction
over the pendent state-law claims, The intentional infliction of
emotional distress claim is also time-barred by the two-year
statute of limitations governing Illinois personal injury actions.

Ms. Prince attempts to preserve the state-law claims by
alleging in her response to FCNB’s motion to dismiss that diversity
exists between herself and Oregon-based FCNB and that the amount in
controversy is greater than $75,000. However, diversity among

plaintiffs and defendants must be complete, and Ms. Prince’s


Minate Orc A orm (0697)

\S v, United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Jud i Sitting Judge if Other
ir Magistrate Judge Elaine E, Bucklo than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 03 C 5160 DATE 8/25/2004
CASE Prince vs. Campbell, et al.
TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
of the motion being presented.]

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

a a Filed motion of { use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due

(3) a) Answer brief to motion due___—- - Reply to answer briefdue_____.

(4) a Ruling/Hearingon_ ss setfor_ at.

(5) oO Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—ssetfor_ at

(6) Q Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__——ssetfor__——sat_—

(7) Oo Trial[set for/re-set for}on___—_att

(8) oO [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to___—__at

(9) Qo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
COFRCP4(m) OlLocal Rule 41.1 OFRCP4i(a\(1)  FRCP41(a)(2).

do of (Other docket entry} | Defendant First Consumers National Bank’s motion to dismiss second

amended complaint is granted. Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. The remaining defendants Jason
Dallman, Doris Doe and Dorothy Campbell are dismissed for plaintiff s failure to comply with Rule 4 (m)
of the Fed. R, Civ. P. Any pending motion in this case is terminated as moot.

dai) ff (For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.
2

No notices required, umber of notices

V | Notices mailed by judge's staff

Notified counsel by telephone.

Docketing to mail notices.

J | Mail AO 450 form. IMPOS FOI Legs a

docketing deputy initats

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.
9725/2004

CEs Uy co eay
courtroom aeT Hd So sry ngge dato mid poses
MPI deputy’s

initials

peers a MPI

Datertime received A
central Clerk’s Office ‘mailing deputy initials



surviving claims against several Illinois citizens destroy complete

diversity in this case.

ENTER ORDER:

Lb20 2 £E. fourkt,

Elaine E. Bucklo
United States District Judge

Dated: August 25 , 2004


Plaintiff has filed an objection to this court’s earlier order
treating her “motion to strike insufficient defense” filed on July
15, 2004, as her response to defendant’s motion to dismiss. I set
the briefing schedule on defendant First Consumer National Bank’s
motion to dismiss on May 3, 2004. At that time I gave plaintiff
until May 25, 2004 to file a response. Plaintiff did not file a
response but on June 22 sought additional time to respond, a motion
which I granted on June 30, 2004. At that time I gave plaintiff
until July 16, 2004 to file her response. Plaintiff was not at
liberty to ignore my order, and I reasonably gave her the benefit
of the doubt in considering the arguments made in her motion to
strike as her response. She has not filed any additional arguments
in response to the motion to dismiss other than her present
objection, which I have considered. The objection is denied. In
ruling on defendant’s motion to dismiss (in a separate opinion from
this order), I have also considered the fact that plaintiff is pro
se; as we do anytime a defendant seeks to dismiss a complaint
against a pro se plaintiff, we have done our own research before
ruling on the issues of law presented by the motion.


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

INGRID PRINCE,
Plaintiff,
v.

DOROTHY CAMPBELL, JOHN DAY, JESSE
HARRIS, AAA CHICAGO MOTOR CLUB,
JASON DALLMAN, H&R BLOCK TAX
SERVICES, REBECCA EMIGHOLZ, STEVE
HARDY, FIRST CONSUMERS NATIONAL
BANK, AMERICAN EXPRESS, CITY OF
CHICAGO AND CHICAGO POLICE
DEPARTMENT, and DORIS DOE,

%,
No. 03 ¢ 5160 115 Mey

by

Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Ingrid Prince filed a complaint against numerous
corporate and individual defendants in connection with an alleged
conspiracy to frame, kidnap, and maliciously prosecute her. Ms
Prince’s version of events is as follows. On or about April 27,
2001, she visited the store of defendant AAA Chicago Motor Club
(“Chicago Motor”), renewed her membership, and purchased $400 worth
of traveler’s checks bearing the imprint of defendant American
Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. (“American Express”),
with a credit card issued by defendant First Consumers National
Bank (‘“FCNB”). Later, defendant Jason Daliman, a Chicago Motor
employee, stole money from his employer and attempted to cover up
his wrongdoing by forging paperwork that made it appear that Ms.

Prince was responsible for the missing money. Mr. Dallman made a

aX