Mekuria v. Bank of America
883 F. Supp. 2d 10
D.D.C.2011Background
- Mekuria, an Ethiopian American, had longtime Business Bank accounts with Bank of America in DC.
- May–June 2009 deposits were disputed; Bank allegedly required in-person verification and later issued deposit corrections.
- On July 16, 2009 the Bank closed all five Mekuria accounts, withholding funds without explanation.
- Bank sent cashier's checks representing balances on July 31 and September 2, 2009, but did not credit disputed deposits.
- Mekuria filed suit August 6, 2010 asserting §1981 discrimination, and state-law breach claims; Amended Complaint adds Counts II–III.
- Bank moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); Court dismissed Count I with prejudice and Counts II–III without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1981 claim is plausibly pleaded | Mekuria alleges discriminatory profiling based on race/origin. | Allegations are conclusory and lack factual support for discriminatory motive. | Count I dismissed for failure to plead plausible discrimination. |
| Whether the pleading meets Twombly/Iqbal standard | Complaint should be liberally construed with favorable inferences. | Allegations are mere labels/conclusions without factual support. | Plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts; dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether the state-law claims should be retained under pendent jurisdiction | Claims arise from the same transaction and should be heard in federal court. | With federal claims dismissed, no basis to retain state claims. | Counts II and III dismissed without prejudice; pendent jurisdiction declined. |
| Whether the court should exercise discretion to retain jurisdiction over remaining claims | Judicial economy favors keeping all claims in one forum. | No federal claims remain; state claims belong in local court. | Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction; dismissal without prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Domino’s Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald, 546 U.S. 470 (2006) (§1981 discrimination claim requires plausible inference of racial motivation)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading requires claims to be plausible, not merely possible)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) (plaintiff must plead factual content supporting plausibility)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002) (rejected heightened pleading for discrimination claims at the initial stage)
- Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988) (pendent jurisdiction factors: economy, convenience, fairness)