King v. Fidelity Investments

Background

Pro se plaintiff Troy Demond King filed a complaint against Fidelity Investments. He asserted diversity jurisdiction and described himself as a “Non-Citizen National (America).” He alleged that he entered into a contract or financial arrangement with Fidelity Investments involving the liquidation of U.S. Treasury securities, that his account was closed without due process based on accusations of fraud, and that funds were unlawfully seized. In a later submission, he identified alleged violations of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.

Fidelity Investments moved to dismiss and asked the court to declare King a vexatious litigant. Fidelity argued that “Fidelity Investments” was a trade name rather than a proper defendant, that King failed to state a claim, and that he had not adequately established diversity jurisdiction because his claimed amount in controversy was implausible and insufficiently pleaded. The court gave King notice and an opportunity to respond. King was proceeding without a lawyer.

Motion to Dismiss

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which requires dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to make a claim for relief plausible. Although courts read complaints filed without a lawyer liberally, such complaints still must allege facts that allow the court to determine that a claim has been stated.

The court held that King had provided only vague statements about entering a financial arrangement with Fidelity Investments and about the closure of his account. He did not provide specific factual allegations about his transactions with the defendant. The court concluded that these allegations did not raise a right to relief above the speculative level. It also found that, given King’s opposition and litigation history, allowing him to amend would not result in a corrected complaint.

The court therefore granted the motion to dismiss without leave to amend. The court stated that Fidelity’s arguments concerning the trade name and diversity jurisdiction were not necessary to the dismissal because the failure to allege a plausible claim was sufficient.

Vexatious-Litigant Motion

A vexatious-litigant order may impose pre-filing restrictions, meaning that certain future complaints cannot be filed unless they first receive court review and approval. The court considered the Ninth Circuit’s requirements that the litigant receive notice and an opportunity to respond, that the record supporting the restriction be adequate, that the court make substantive findings about frivolous or harassing filings, and that the restriction be narrowly tailored.

The court took judicial notice of Exhibits 1 through 49 in Fidelity’s request because they were matters of public record. Those exhibits documented numerous cases King had filed in federal and state courts. The court found that the record was adequate, that King had received notice and an opportunity to oppose the requested order, and that review of the case histories showed frivolous or harassing filings. The court also noted that King had previously been declared a vexatious litigant in a California state court and that, in 2022, this federal court had certified one of his appeals as not taken in good faith and revoked his ability to proceed without paying fees in that appeal.

To tailor the restriction, the court identified King’s most frequent litigation targets as government agencies or representatives and financial-services institutions. It ordered the clerk not to file or accept any new complaint by King against those categories unless the district court’s general-duty judge first reviewed and approved the complaint for filing.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to dismiss without leave to amend. It also granted the motion to declare King a vexatious litigant in this district and submitted the specified pre-filing restriction to the clerk.