Pittman v. Wells Fargo N.A.

Background

Randy D. Pittman filed a complaint against Wells Fargo Bank and Visa, Inc. He alleged that the defendants failed to reimburse him for approximately $16,000 in charges that he claimed were fraudulent. He characterized the defendants’ conduct as a breach of contract. The opinion states that Pittman was representing himself and that he was incarcerated in North Carolina. The court separately granted him permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed the complaint under the screening requirement for cases brought by people who are representing themselves. Under that requirement, the court must dismiss an action that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The court also applied the rule requiring a complaint to provide a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief, with enough factual content to make the claim plausible rather than speculative.

The court held that Pittman had not sufficiently pleaded a breach-of-contract claim. He did not identify the contract or contracts he had with the defendants, state whether they were written or oral, or identify the contract terms that the defendants allegedly breached. The court also stated that Pittman had not alleged a basis for punitive damages. It cautioned that if a contract limited damages for a breach to less than $75,000, there might not be enough money at stake to establish jurisdiction over the claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1983, as stated in the opinion.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Pittman was ordered to file an amended complaint within 28 days after the order was filed. The amended complaint must use the caption and case number specified by the court and include the words “COURT-ORDERED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. It must include all claims Pittman wants to pursue because it will replace the original complaint, and it may not incorporate the original complaint by reference. The court stated that failing to amend within the deadline and in accordance with the order will result in dismissal of the case. Judge Jeffrey S. White also stated that Pittman was responsible for prosecuting the case, keeping the court informed of any address change, and complying with court orders.