LaRue v. Chase
8:25-cv-00225
D. MarylandApr 14, 2025Background
- Regina Coco LaRue, self-represented, filed a 69-page amended complaint against ten defendants in District of Maryland, alleging defamation, emotional distress, tortious interference, invasion of privacy, conspiracy, fraud, and copyright infringement.
- LaRue accused defendants of spreading false information, interfering with her business, misusing personal info, and targeting her family, including alleged occult practices.
- Several defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and/or for failure to state a claim.
- The amended complaint exceeded the 40-page local rule limit; LaRue did not get leave of court for an overlength complaint.
- Motions to expedite discovery and for default judgment were filed by LaRue but were judged premature or procedurally deficient.
- The court dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice and gave LaRue 28 days to file a compliant second amended complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants | Defendants purposefully directed activities at MD residents, including LaRue | No specific jurisdiction; insufficient allegations under MD long-arm statute | No personal jurisdiction; claims dismissed w/o prejud. |
| Pleading standards & complaint length | Alleged multiple wrongful actions spanning several years | Complaint is overly long, unclear, fails to state claims with required specificity | Complaint exceeds page limit, lacks clarity; dismissed |
| Default judgment eligibility | Sought default judgments for failure to respond | No clerk’s entry of default; motion is procedurally improper given pending dismissal | Default judgment denied without prejudice |
| Premature discovery | Moved to expedite discovery early in case | Discovery not ripe until claims survive a motion to dismiss | Motion to expedite denied as premature |
Key Cases Cited
- Fidrych v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 952 F.3d 124 (4th Cir. 2020) (personal jurisdiction standard)
- Carefirst of Md., Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Ctrs., Inc., 334 F.3d 390 (4th Cir. 2003) (general and specific jurisdiction standards)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standards)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standards)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002) (notice pleading requirement)
- White v. White, 886 F.2d 721 (4th Cir. 1989) (leniency toward pro se pleadings)
- Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147 (4th Cir. 1978) (pro se litigant amendment opportunity)