Driessen v. Royal Bank of Scotland
691 F. App'x 21
2d Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff Rochelle Driessen, pro se and proceeding IFP, sued Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) after responding to an email claiming she had won £750,000 in a “Google lottery.”
- Driessen alleged she exchanged emails with a person purporting to be affiliated with RBS and that RBS refused to provide a “Non Residential Tax Code,” preventing transfer of the winnings.
- She asserted RBS violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1693 et seq.).
- The district court adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed the complaint sua sponte as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
- The district court found the claim factually baseless—Driessen was the target of an obvious lottery scam and RBS could not be liable for the fraudulent scheme.
- Driessen appealed the dismissal; the Second Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the IFP complaint was frivolous and subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) | Driessen claimed RBS’s refusal to provide a tax code prevented transfer of lottery winnings and violated the EFT Act | RBS argued (implicitly) it was not liable and the claim was baseless because the transaction was a scam, not a legitimate lottery payout | Court held the complaint was frivolous: allegations were clearly baseless (obvious scam) and dismissal was proper |
| Whether dismissal misapplied Neitzke v. Williams when treating the claim as frivolous rather than merely failing to state a claim | Driessen argued the court misapplied Neitzke and should not dismiss as frivolous | Court relied on Neitzke but distinguished frivolousness from mere failure to state a claim given the delusional/scam-based facts | Court held Neitzke was properly applied: claim was frivolous, not merely deficient pleading |
| Whether leave to amend should have been granted | Driessen sought leave to amend her complaint | RBS implicitly argued amendment would be futile because core allegations were baseless | Court held amendment would be futile and denial of leave was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Milan v. Wertheimer, 808 F.3d 961 (2d Cir.) (standard of review for § 1915(e)(2)(B) dismissal)
- Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434 (2d Cir.) (definition of frivolous: baseless factual contentions or indisputably meritless legal theory)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (U.S.) (frivolousness vs. failure to state a claim)
- Krys v. Pigott, 749 F.3d 117 (2d Cir.) (leave to amend may be denied when amendment would be futile)