Giddings v. Oanda Corp.

Background

Warren Matthew Giddings sued the United States, Oanda Corporation, and Max F. Brauer. Giddings represented himself. He alleged that Oanda withheld his investment funds and failed to direct them as instructed for approximately three years. He alleged that, after seeking help through a consumer protection agency, he complained to Brauer, an assistant attorney general for Maryland, but Brauer did not respond to or investigate the complaint for more than a year and a half. Giddings also alleged that the United States did not respond to, investigate, or act on his complaints. He claimed more than $90,000 in lost income.

Giddings’s second amended complaint asserted claims involving the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Federal Tort Claims Act, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference with business relations, unfair business practices, negligence, gross negligence, legal malpractice, equal protection, breach of fiduciary duty or good faith, breach of a duty of care, and other claims he had previously raised.

Brauer’s Motion

Brauer moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning its legal authority to hear a case. Brauer argued that the Eleventh Amendment protected him from suit.

The court concluded that Giddings sued Brauer in his official capacity as an assistant attorney general. It held that Brauer was protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity and that Giddings had not shown any applicable exception, such as a waiver of immunity, congressional removal of immunity, or a request for prospective injunctive relief. The court also stated that there is no constitutional right to have government officials investigate a complaint. Because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims against Brauer, it granted Brauer’s motion to dismiss.

The United States’ Motion

The United States moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that Giddings had not exhausted the administrative process required by the Federal Tort Claims Act. That statute requires a person to first present the claim to the appropriate federal agency and receive a final written denial before filing suit.

Giddings argued that he had exhausted the process by repeatedly sending written complaints to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The court held that complaints and letters were not the same as a formal administrative claim. It also held that filing an administrative claim after the lawsuit began could not correct the earlier failure to exhaust. Because Giddings had not exhausted the required process before filing suit, the court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and granted the United States’ motion to dismiss.

Oanda’s Motion

Oanda moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Oanda argued that Giddings had not provided facts or legal theories supporting his causes of action.

The court agreed. It found that the second amended complaint did not contain the factual allegations needed to support any of the eleven causes of action Giddings listed. The court considered allegations from Giddings’s earlier filings because he was representing himself, but found that those filings also lacked additional useful detail. Although courts generally give a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend when the complaint might state a valid claim, the court noted that Giddings had already amended twice and had previously been warned that another amendment was unlikely. The court therefore granted Oanda’s motion and did not allow Giddings to file a third amended complaint.

Disposition

The court granted Brauer’s motion to dismiss, granted the United States’ motion to dismiss, and granted Oanda’s motion to dismiss. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the case. The opinion does not state that any of the dismissals were with or without prejudice.