Utterback v. GEITHNER
754 F. Supp. 2d 52
D.D.C.2010Background
- Petitioners filed a petition for writ of mandamus-like relief against Tim Geithner in the DC District Court alleging various accounting/financial-related claims tied to the 2008 financial actions; the petition named Queen Elizabeth II and Does 1–50 as respondents initially.
- An amended complaint on May 28, 2010 identified only Geithner as respondent and listed numerous purported causes of action (e.g., extension of credit, accounting, unjust enrichment, declaratory relief, and requests to remove blocked account status).
- Respondent Geithner moved to dismiss under FRCP 8, 10, and 12(b)(6); petitioners simultaneously sought summary judgment, judicial notice, and leave to amend.
- The court applied Twombly/Iqbal standards for dismissal and set forth the standard for summary judgment, ultimately granting the motion to dismiss and denying the other motions.
- The court concluded petitioners’ allegations failed to state a plausible claim and granted the dismissal, denying summary judgment and their requested relief, including leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Amended Complaint states a plausible claim under Rule 12(b)(6) | Utterback argues for relief based on multiple financial-control theories. | Geithner contends the Amended Complaint is incoherent and lacks fair notice or legal grounds for relief. | Amended Complaint fails to state a plausible claim; dismissal granted. |
| Whether leave to amend should be granted given futility | Utterback seeks an additional amendment to articulate claims. | Geithner argues amendments would be futile due to lack of coherent claims. | Leave to amend denied as futile. |
| Whether petitioners' summary-judgment motion and judicial-notice request should be granted | Utterback moves for summary judgment and judicial notice. | Geithner opposes these requests as unsupported by a coherent factual or legal basis. | Summary judgment denied and judicial-notice request denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (facial plausibility required for claims)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (U.S. 2007) (liberal construction of pro se filings)
- Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (pro se pleadings considered with leniency)
- Kowal v. MCI Communications Corp., 16 F.3d 1271 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (vague allegations insufficient if not supported by facts)
- Aktieselskabet AF 21 November 2001 v. Fame Jeans Inc., 525 F.3d 8 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (inference must be supported by the facts alleged)