Moore v. KPMG

Background

Charisse S. Moore, proceeding without a lawyer, sued KPMG and Brenda Cecilia Duenas Hills under the court’s federal-question jurisdiction. KPMG moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally valid claim. Neither defendant had been served when the opinion was issued.

Moore described her allegations as involving a “Multi-Year Targeting, Hacking and Stalking” scheme. Her allegations focused largely on her friendship and interactions with Hills, including statements Moore attributed to Hills about KPMG, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and other subjects. The opinion states that, apart from alleging Hills worked at KPMG and sometimes discussed KPMG, Moore did not allege direct contact or interaction with KPMG or its agents.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that self-represented pleadings must be read generously, but they still must contain enough facts to state a plausible claim. It also applied the requirement that a complaint provide a short, plain, coherent, and direct statement of the basis for relief.

The court concluded that Moore did not allege conduct by either Hills or KPMG that amounted to legally cognizable harm. It also found no plausible factual support for the stalking allegations. The court stated that the complaint did not meet the minimum requirements of coherence and rationality and that the combination of unsupported allegations and their outlandish nature made the complaint frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

The court declined to allow Moore to amend because it found the allegations vague and incomprehensible and could not discern any claims that were not frivolous on their face.

Ruling

Judge J. Paul Oetken granted KPMG’s motion to dismiss. The court’s conclusion states that Moore’s complaint was dismissed with prejudice in its entirety under Rule 8(a) and was deemed frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The opening discussion separately states that the court dismissed the complaint as to Hills on its own, while the conclusion states the overall dismissal applied to the entire complaint.

The court warned that future duplicative or frivolous actions could result in an order barring Moore from filing new actions without paying court fees unless she obtained the court’s permission. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The clerk was directed to enter judgment, terminate pending motions, and close the case.