Dancer v. Bank of America, N.A.
2022 IL App (1st) 210664-U
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2022Background
- Pro se plaintiff Jermaine Dancer filed suit against Bank of America asserting he also used the stage names “Tupac Shakur” and “Turk,” and sought recovery of funds he said were in bank accounts or on a debit card.
- Plaintiff alleged millions of dollars were on a debit card and in accounts and later sought a “re-load”; he later alleged the bank closed accounts for inactivity and because it believed he was deceased.
- Bank moved to dismiss under section 2-615 (failure to state a claim); the trial court granted dismissal without prejudice twice and, after a second amended complaint, dismissed with prejudice.
- The second amended complaint contained conclusory, fantastical assertions but lacked specific factual allegations identifying the bank’s actions, dates, or legal basis for relief.
- On appeal Dancer (pro se) also failed to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341 briefing requirements; the appellate court nevertheless reached the merits.
- The appellate court affirmed dismissal, holding the pleading failed to allege facts sufficient to state a legally cognizable claim and dismissal with prejudice was proper after multiple chances to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal under 735 ILCS 5/2-615 was proper for failure to state a claim | Dancer contended the bank removed/closed accounts and/or funds (due to presumed death) and sought recovery | Bank argued the pleadings were conclusory, fantastical, and failed to plead facts supporting any recognized cause of action | Affirmed: dismissal with prejudice proper — complaint lacked factual allegations to state a cause of action |
| Whether pro se noncompliance with appellate briefing rules required dismissal of appeal | Dancer offered briefs without record citations or legal authority | Bank relied on procedural and substantive defects; court noted Rule 341 failures | Court noted Rule 341 failures but exercised discretion to decide on merits; nonetheless affirmed on substantive grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Berry v. City of Chicago, 2020 IL 124999 (Illinois 2020) (describing the function of a section 2-615 motion and standard for construing pleadings)
- Bogenberger v. Pi Kappa Alpha Corp., Inc., 2018 IL 120951 (Illinois 2018) (Illinois is a fact-pleading jurisdiction — complaints must allege facts, not conclusions)
- Roberts v. Board of Trustees of Community College District No. 508, 2019 IL 123594 (Illinois 2019) (de novo review standard for section 2-615 dismissals)
- Doe v. Coe, 2019 IL 123521 (Illinois 2019) (plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to bring a claim within a legally recognized cause of action)