Thomas v. Barclays Capital Inc
5:18-cv-00257
W.D. La.Jan 4, 2019Background
- Plaintiff (pro se) opened four Barclays accounts and alleges a $2.5 million wire from an account at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago was transferred into those accounts, later "reversed," and effectively stolen by Barclays.
- Plaintiff contends Fedwire transfers are final/irrevocable after settlement and therefore a purported reversal was illegal; he attached web screenshots, a UCC filing acknowledgment, and emails to support his claims.
- Plaintiff also alleges Barclays labeled him a "scammer," restricted his communications, and treated him disrespectfully. He seeks $17.5 million.
- Corporate defendants (Barclays entities) and individual defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (Rule 12(b)(2)) and failure to state a claim (Rule 12(b)(6)); Barclays Bank Delaware was not challenged on jurisdiction.
- The Court dismissed all defendants except Barclays for lack of personal jurisdiction, and dismissed the claims against Barclays for failure to state a claim; motion to strike was denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over non-Barclays corporate defendants | Non-Barclays entities are properly before the court (implied from complaint) | Plaintiff did not plead any contacts or domicile in Louisiana for these defendants | Dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing |
| Personal jurisdiction over individual defendants | Individual defendants are liable and subject to jurisdiction | No allegations tying individuals to Louisiana or the transactions | Dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction |
| Conversion/theft of funds | Barclays accepted a final Fedwire transfer and then "stole" the funds by reversing improperly | Plaintiff cannot show a right to funds at the Federal Reserve; individuals cannot hold Fed accounts | Dismissed for failure to state a claim; conversion implausible because individuals cannot have Fed Reserve accounts |
| Fraud/defamation/UCC and statutory claims | Various federal and state statutes and common-law torts (fraud, defamation, UCC Article 4/4A, National Bank Act, Dodd-Frank, etc.) support relief | Claims are not pleaded with required particularity; facts do not fit the statutory schemes (e.g., UCC 4A inapplicable) | All claims dismissed for failure to state a claim (fraud not pled with Rule 9(b) particularity; defamation lacks publication; UCC/other statutes inapplicable) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for Rule 8 pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (courts need not accept legal conclusions; plausibility test)
- Quick Techs., Inc. v. Sage Grp. PLC, 313 F.3d 338 (plaintiff bears prima facie burden to establish personal jurisdiction when no evidentiary hearing)
- Patin v. Thoroughbred Power Boats Inc., 294 F.3d 640 (Louisiana long-arm statute extends to constitutional limits)
- Johnston v. Multidata Sys. Int'l Corp., 523 F.3d 602 (personal jurisdiction analysis requires long-arm + due process)
- Patterson v. Aker Sols. Inc., 826 F.3d 231 (plaintiff’s burden in prima facie personal jurisdiction showing)
- Chhim v. Univ. of Texas at Austin, 836 F.3d 467 (pro se complaints afforded more lenient review)
- Hale v. King, 642 F.3d 492 (leave to amend not required where plaintiff has pled best case)
- ABC Arbitrage v. Tchuruk, 291 F.3d 336 (Rule 9(b) requirements for pleading fraud)
- United States ex rel. Steury v. Cardinal Health, Inc., 625 F.3d 262 (fraud pleading requires who, what, when, where, and how)