Brandon Joe Williams v. American Express Company
2:24-cv-01631
C.D. Cal.Jul 10, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Brandon Joe Williams, proceeding pro se, sued American Express Company and American Express Kabbage, Inc. (AMEX), alleging various violations after AMEX refused to accept certain forms as payment on his debts.
- Williams claimed to own a trademark on his name and attempted to use IRS 1099A forms and other documents, asserting he could "create currency" to pay his debts.
- AMEX rejected these attempts, closed Williams' accounts, and Williams filed an eleven-claim complaint, alleging breach of contract, federal criminal and civil violations, and forced labor, among others.
- AMEX moved to dismiss the claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a plausible claim.
- Williams also sought to strike AMEX's motion to dismiss for alleged procedural violations, and sought leave to amend his complaint.
- The court addressed and resolved various procedural and substantive motions, ultimately dismissing the action in its entirety without leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Noncompliance with Local Rules | AMEX failed to comply with local procedural rules; the MTD should be stricken. | Any procedural failure was justified by plaintiff's conduct; no prejudice caused. | No substantial prejudice; strike denied. |
| Failure to state a claim | AMEX violated law by rejecting plaintiff's payment forms, supporting eleven legal claims. | Complaint relies on frivolous 'vapor money' theory; fails to allege viable claims. | All claims dismissed. |
| Viability of claims under statutes | Plaintiff entitled to relief under various federal statutes, including criminal statutes. | Statutes cited do not provide a private right of action. | No private right of action exists. |
| Leave to amend | Sought to amend to add new claims based on same core theory. | Amendment would be futile as claims are not viable. | Amendment denied as futile. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (establishes plausibility standard for motions to dismiss)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard and requirement to disregard legal conclusions)
- Nymark v. Heart Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 231 Cal. App. 3d 1089 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (banks typically owe no duty of care beyond their role as lenders)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (sets forth factors for granting leave to amend complaint)
- Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) (leave to amend policy should be applied liberally)