Bruce v. Pentagon Federal Credit Union
2:22-cv-02211
D.S.C.Dec 9, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Nelson L. Bruce, pro se, brought claims against Pentagon Federal Credit Union (PenFed) under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and related statutes.
- Plaintiff has amended his complaint four times and sought, after the deadline, to add the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (FRB) and a "conspiracy claim."
- Plaintiff alleges that a financial transaction involving PenFed and the FRB relieved him of debt owed to PenFed, claiming PenFed was "credited" by the FRB.
- The Court previously required PenFed to explain, by affidavit, whether it had been compensated by the FRB on Plaintiff's accounts; PenFed submitted a declaration denying any such compensation.
- Plaintiff filed a fifth motion to amend (to add new claims/parties) and a motion to compel further discovery from PenFed, both after relevant deadlines in the scheduling order.
- The motions at issue were Plaintiff’s fifth motion to amend the complaint and his motion to compel additional discovery, both of which PenFed opposed as untimely and lacking merit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Late Motion to Amend Complaint | New amendment needed based on recent discovery, adding FRB and a conspiracy claim | Plaintiff was not diligent; knew basis of facts months ago | Denied for lack of diligence under Rule 16(b)(4) |
| Futility of Proposed Amendment | New claim is viable due to alleged financial conspiracy involving a $353,525.34 transaction | Claim is fanciful, lacks basis in fact or law, would not survive a motion to dismiss | Amendment futile under Rule 15(a); claim has no legal merit |
| Issuance of Third-Party Subpoenas | Subpoenas necessary to obtain evidence supporting conspiracy claims | Subpoenas unwarranted after court denied conspiracy amendment | Denied; no basis after amendment denied |
| Motion to Compel Discovery | PenFed should be required to produce additional documents on account practices and transactions | Requests were untimely, overly broad, irrelevant or already satisfied | Denied as untimely and disproportionate to case needs |
Key Cases Cited
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (sets standards for when leave to amend should be granted)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard and use of judicial experience/common sense)
- Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404 (4th Cir. 2006) (Rule 15(a) pleading amendment principles)
- Nourison Rug Corp. v. Parvizian, 535 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2008) (necessity of showing good cause after scheduling order deadlines)
- Erdmann v. Preferred Research, Inc., of Ga., 852 F.2d 788 (4th Cir. 1988) (court's discretion in resolving discovery disputes)