Glover v. Hochschild

Background

Wilbert Glover alleged that he applied for a Discover Card in 2020 and was denied credit. He alleged that customer-service representatives made statements referring to his race, age, credit score, and receipt of Social Security income. Discover later identified several credit-related reasons for the denial, including recent credit inquiries, the length of time his accounts had existed, the number of accounts paid as agreed, and account balances.

Glover alleged race and age discrimination and invoked 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 and 1692, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982, and Minn. Stat. § 363A.12. He sought $10 million in damages. The defendants moved to dismiss. Glover asked for an opportunity to amend, but he did not provide a proposed amended complaint as required by the District of Minnesota’s local rules.

Court’s Analysis

The court treated the motion under the standard for dismissal for failure to state a claim. It accepted well-pleaded factual allegations as true but required facts making the claims plausible rather than speculative.

- 28 U.S.C. § 1331: The court explained that this statute provides federal-question jurisdiction but does not itself create a substantive claim. To the extent Glover intended to assert a separate claim under § 1331, the court dismissed it. - Minn. Stat. § 363A.12: The court held that this provision concerns discrimination in a public service provided by a state entity. Because Discover Card is a private company, the court dismissed this claim. - 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982: These provisions address racial discrimination in contracts and in the purchase, lease, sale, or transfer of property. The court held that they do not address age or gender discrimination. It also held that Glover had not plausibly alleged racial discrimination because the statements he described were not shown to have been made by Discover decision-makers, and he did not identify another Discover customer who received more favorable treatment. - 15 U.S.C. § 1681: The court identified this as part of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Glover did not identify the specific provision allegedly violated and did not allege that Discover supplied information to credit-reporting agencies or failed to correct inaccurate information. - 15 U.S.C. § 1692: The court identified this as part of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which applies to debt collectors. Glover agreed at the hearing that Discover was not a debt collector and that he had no claim under this law. The court dismissed this claim.

Amendment and Filing Restriction

The court denied Glover’s request to amend because he did not submit a proposed amended complaint and because amendment would be futile. The court stated that Glover had no claims against Discover and that the deficiencies could not be cured through repleading.

The court also found that Glover had repeatedly filed substantially similar discrimination lawsuits in the District. It concluded that his continued filing of such actions constituted abuse of the judicial process. Effective immediately, Glover was restricted from filing new civil actions in the District unless represented by a licensed attorney or he first received written authorization from a judicial officer.

Disposition

Judge Paul A. Magnuson ordered that the defendants’ motion to dismiss was GRANTED, that the matter was DISMISSED with prejudice, and that the clerk place Glover on the District’s restricted-filer list.