Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled May 24, 2023

Gueye v. Wells Fargo Bank

Judge
Jacquelyn Corley
Docket
3:22-cv-08904
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
4
Civil RightsCivil ProcedureMotion to DismissPro Se
In one sentence

Gueye v. Wells Fargo Bank: Judge Corley granted dismissal on limitations grounds but allowed amendment by June 29, 2023.

Who this affects

Madiabel Gueye, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and Chris Potts. The defendants obtained dismissal of the claims as pleaded, while Gueye retained permission to file an amended complaint by June 29, 2023.

What happened

In Gueye v. Wells Fargo Bank, Madiabel Gueye sued Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and employee Chris Potts over alleged racial discrimination and emotional distress. The court considered two specific incidents from 2018 and 2019, along with Gueye’s broader allegations of continued mistreatment.

Gueye filed the lawsuit in 2022, more than two years after those incidents. The court ruled that the claims, as pleaded, were barred by the applicable two-year time limit. Gueye did not oppose the motion to dismiss.

Judge Corley granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss but allowed Gueye to file an amended complaint by June 29, 2023. If he did not amend by that date, the action would be dismissed with prejudice.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Gueye v. Wells Fargo Bank · No. 3:22-cv-08904
Judge
Jacquelyn Corley
Date
May 24, 2023

Background

Madiabel Gueye, representing himself, sued Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and Chris Potts, identified as a Wells Fargo manager or employee. He asserted a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, a federal law prohibiting certain racial discrimination in making and enforcing contracts, and a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Gueye alleged that Wells Fargo employees subjected him and his employees to racial profiling, racial slurs, derogatory comments, suspicion, unequal treatment, and humiliation while they made cash deposits at a Wells Fargo branch near his business. He described two specific incidents. On December 15, 2018, an employee questioned where Gueye obtained $48,356.59, required three forms of identification, and allegedly treated him suspiciously. On March 25, 2019, employees allegedly treated him with suspicion and hostility, said that his cash was $5,000 short, and refused to count it by hand. Gueye also alleged that Wells Fargo employees repeatedly reported cash shortages and estimated that he lost more than $150,000.

Motion to Dismiss

Wells Fargo and Potts moved to dismiss. Gueye did not file an opposition. The court concluded that the two specific incidents were outside the applicable two-year statute of limitations. Gueye knew about the alleged injuries when the incidents occurred in 2018 and 2019, but he did not file suit until 2022.

The court also noted that Gueye alleged discrimination had continued during the previous four years, but he did not provide facts supporting those allegations apart from the time-barred incidents. Because the claims as pleaded were barred by the statute of limitations, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court allowed Gueye to file an amended complaint because he might be able to allege actionable conduct occurring during the two years before he filed suit. The amended complaint had to be filed by June 29, 2023, and had to be complete on its own rather than relying on earlier pleadings. The court stated that if Gueye did not file an amended complaint by that date, the action would be dismissed with prejudice as barred by the statute of limitations. Judge Jacquelyn Corley also vacated the scheduled June 1, 2023 hearing.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.