Hilton v. United-Consumer

Background

Robert Hilton and Joyce Oliver, appearing without lawyers, sued United Consumer UCFS (UCFS), Jocelyn Torres, and William Shaffer. The plaintiffs said their claims concerned a timeshare in which they may have invested money. They invoked federal-question jurisdiction and alleged that the defendants engaged in fraudulent activities and stole funds. They also referred to alleged violations involving federal funds and a security act. The plaintiffs sought $1.5 million.

The plaintiffs alleged that they made numerous calls and sent messages to Torres that were ignored, and that Shaffer was unresponsive. They also alleged that they later learned UCFS was not accredited by the Better Business Bureau and had several complaints. The complaint described injuries including nightmares and falls while trying to message Torres, but it did not explain the relationship between the plaintiffs and defendants, why the plaintiffs communicated with Torres and Shaffer, or why they believed the defendants stole their money.

Court’s Review

Because the plaintiffs had been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal of an in forma pauperis complaint, or part of one, if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that it must dismiss a case if it lacks authority to hear the claims.

The court explained that Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The complaint must include enough factual detail to make liability plausible, not merely possible. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not provided enough information to determine whether their allegations plausibly supported relief or to allow the defendants to respond.

Leave to Amend

The court granted the plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must identify in the caption and claims the individuals who allegedly violated the plaintiffs’ federally protected rights. It must provide a short and plain statement of the facts supporting each claim against each defendant and include any known defendant addresses.

The court directed the plaintiffs to include the names and titles of relevant people; what each defendant did or failed to do; the approximate date, time, and general location of each event; the injuries suffered; and the relief requested. The amended complaint will replace the original complaint rather than supplement it, so any facts or claims the plaintiffs want the court to consider must be repeated.

Disposition

Judge Kimba M. Wood granted the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint that complies with the stated requirements. The court kept the action open, but no summons would issue at that time. If the plaintiffs fail to file an amended complaint within 30 days and cannot show good cause for the failure, the court said it will dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied the plaintiffs fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.