Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND : CARLOS PETERS : v. : Civil Action No. DKC 2004-3451 : BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. : MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Carlos Peters filed this action against BMW of North America ("BMW"), on October 26, 2004. complaint and declarations, along with Plaintiff's amended the other documents

Plaintiff has submitted in this case, are incomprehensible and fail to allege any facts to establish that BMW owes Plaintiff any amount of money or has any other obligations to Plaintiff. Paper nos. 5, 18, 20-27. The court will grant Defendant's

motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and will enjoin Plaintiff from pursuing any additional legal action against Defendant in this or a related matter without leave of court.

I.

Background Plaintiff obtained a loan and purchased a car from Defendant

in early 2004.

Paper no. 1, attachment to complaint.1

Although

Although Plaintiff amended his complaint, see paper no. 5, pursuant to Local Rule 103(b)(6), the court may consider attachments to the original complaint.

1

Plaintiff's allegations lack coherency, Plaintiff appears to assert that around March 1, 2004 he mailed a "negotiable

instrument" to Defendant in an attempt to satisfy the car loan, and Defendant failed to return the instrument or discharge the loan. Id. Plaintiff then sent a "Notice of Acceptance to Id. On

Contract" to Defendant, to which it never responded.

August 25, 2004, Defendant sent a letter to Plaintiff indicating that he was in default on the loan, and stating that failure to pay the amount due could result in acceleration of the loan and repossession of the property held as collateral for the loan (i.e., the car). Id. Plaintiff sent a "Voucher" to Defendant Id .

to "discharge and settle account" on September 24, 2004.

On or around that same date, Defendant repossessed Plaintiff's car. In a third and final attempt to settle the account,

Plaintiff sent a "Foreign Bill of Exchange" to Defendant, to which it did not respond. Id. Plaintiff filed a complaint

against Defendant on October 26, 2004, and filed an amended complaint on November 17, 2004.2 Plaintiff seeks relief from

Defendant in the amount of $2,191,640.87,3 and asserts diversity

A comparison between the original and amended complaints revealed only minor wording differences. This is the amount sought in the amended complaint. Paper no. 5. It appears that Plaintiff also seeks the return of the repossessed car, with "upgrades," as well as "new vehicles to be 2
3

2

jurisdiction.

It is unclear from Plaintiff's complaint what

specific claims Plaintiff is asserting. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, paper no. 11, and a motion for issuance of a permanent injunction, paper no. 12. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff's complaint is

incomprehensible, relies on a "legally meaningless series of documents," and is premised on the irrational and wholly

unsupported notion that Plaintiff's submissions to Defendant somehow Plaintiff discharged is a Plaintiff's debt to obligations whom BMW and that money.

secured

creditor

owes

Defendant asks this court, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c)(1)(B), to order Plaintiff to show cause why he should not be

sanctioned. to prevent

Paper no. 11. Plaintiff from

Defendant also seeks an injunction pursuing threatened involuntary

bankruptcy proceedings and filing other fraudulent documents against BMW and its employees. II. Motion to Dismiss A. Standard of Review Paper no. 12.

A court reviewing a complaint in light of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion accepts all well-pled allegations of the complaint as true and construes the facts and reasonable inferences derived

settled at which time such will be decided upon." Paper no. 1, attachments to complaint. In later declarations, Plaintiff seeks relief in the amount of $14,430,000.00. Paper no. 27. 3

therefrom in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. v. United States , 120 F.3d 472, 473 (4th Cir. 1997).

Ibarra Such a

motion ought not to be granted unless "it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). unsupported legal Conley v. Gibson, 355

The court, however, need not accept or pleaded facts, Revene v.

conclusions

Charles County Comm'rs, 882 F.2d 870, 873 (4 th Cir. 1989), or conclusory factual allegations devoid of any reference to

particular acts or practices.

United Black Firefighters v. Except in certain

Hirst, 604 F.2d 844, 847 (4th Cir. 1979).

specified cases, a plaintiff's complaint need only satisfy the "simplified pleading standard" of Rule 8(a), Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 513 (2002), which requires a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). In construing the

complaint of a pro se plaintiff, document liberally and in the

the court must read the most favorable to the

light

plaintiff.

See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).

The function of pleadings under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is to provide fair notice to defendants of the claims being asserted against them. A complaint that is prolix and/or

4

confusing

makes

it

difficult

for

a

defendant

to

file

a

responsive pleading and makes it difficult for the court to conduct orderly litigation. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) requires a

complaint to contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court has jurisdiction, (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief

plaintiff seeks. In order to 9(b) state a claim the for any type to of fraud, the The the

Fed.R.Civ.P.

requires

complaint

state

circumstances constituting fraud "with particularity." Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit discussed

requirements in Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 176 F.3d 776, 784 (4th Cir. 1999): According to two noted scholars, the "circumstances" required to be pled with particularity under Rule 9(b) are "the time, place, and contents of the false representations, as well as the identity of the person making the misrepresentation and what he obtained thereby." 5 Charles Alan Wright and Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil

Download Carlos Peters v. BMW of North America, Inc. (Opinion).pdf

Maryland Law