Laramore v. Old National Bank

Background

Adrianne L. Laramore, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Old National Bank; Regional Manager Kristi Unknown; Branch Manager George Bittar; Legal Department Patti Unknown; and Accounts Representative Katie Eastman. She brought the lawsuit individually and on behalf of her minor child, A.Y.C., concerning her attempts to gain access to the child’s trust account at Old National Bank. The opinion states that Laramore asserted a federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, although she did not expressly identify that statute, and state-law claims including defamation and malicious prosecution.

The case came before the court on Laramore’s objection to an October 1, 2024, report and recommendation by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright. The recommendation was to dismiss the complaint. The court conducted its own review and adopted the recommendation in part.

Personal jurisdiction over Patti Malone

Patti Malone, referred to as “Patti Unknown” in the caption, moved to dismiss the claims against her for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). Personal jurisdiction is a court’s authority over a particular defendant. The court held that this issue had to be resolved before considering Malone’s motion under Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

The court stated that Laramore had presented no evidence that Malone had contacts with Minnesota. Malone submitted evidence that she was a lifelong Illinois resident who had never worked in Minnesota. The only apparent contact between Malone and Laramore was a telephone call Laramore made to Old National’s offices in Illinois. The court concluded that, even if Laramore made the call from Minnesota, Malone could not reasonably have anticipated being sued there because she answered the call while working in Illinois.

The court therefore granted Malone’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the claims against her without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Federal and state-law claims

The defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion and the report and recommendation addressed only Laramore’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The court granted the motion and dismissed that claim without prejudice for failure to state a claim.

The court also found that Laramore had not pleaded enough facts to establish diversity jurisdiction. Because the federal claim was dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—over the claims for matters such as defamation and malicious prosecution. The court dismissed those state-law claims as part of the remainder of the complaint.

Disposition

The court overruled Laramore’s objection to the report and recommendation and adopted the recommendation insofar as it was not inconsistent with the order. It granted Malone’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the claims against her without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. It granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed Laramore’s § 1981 claim without prejudice for failure to state a claim. It dismissed the remainder of the complaint without prejudice and directed that judgment be entered.