Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Archie v. Booker

United States District Court, D. Maryland

May 27, 2016

NITA B. ARCHIE
v.
LAWONNE ELENORA AGER BOOKER

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          DEBORAH K. CHASANOW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Presently pending and ready for resolution in this fraud action is a motion to dismiss filed by Defendant LaWonne Elenora Ager Booker (“Defendant”). (ECF No. 49). The court now rules, no hearing being deemed necessary. Local Rule 105.6. For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss will be granted.

         I. Background

         A. Factual Background [1]

         Plaintiff Nita B. Archie (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she was defrauded and her identity was stolen in connection with a mortgage scheme. According to Plaintiff, Defendant and others operated To God Be The Glory Financial Services, Inc. (“TGBTG”), a company located in Prince George’s County, Maryland, specializing in tax preparation, financial literacy, certified housing counseling, and debt consolidation and elimination. (ECF No. 5, at 2-3). According to Plaintiff:

[Defendant] acted as agent, leader, and chief promoter to unsuspecting persons seeking tax preparation. Upon $500 payment to [Defendant], [Defendant] obtained [W-2 forms] and other tax preparation documents. [Defendant] inquired about homeownership and financial goals of Plaintiff. [Defendant] introduced other financial services provided by [TGBTG] focused on HUD approved, HUD certified financial literacy service endorsed by Oprah Winfrey by [and] through [TGBTG].
Following [Defendant’s] financial transactions [Defendant] vanished without any forwarding information now resurfacing.

(Id. at 3-4). Plaintiff continues, “[Defendant and others] romoted, promised and delivered following tax preparation a 203K financial product which in actuality was a ‘NO DOC’ financial product as a ways and means of [Defendant] credit repair, financial literacy method of [TGBTG], guarantee of financial stability.” (Id. at 6).

         Plaintiff brings this action “for fraudulent, false statements [initiated] by [Defendant and others] unbeknownst to Plaintiff” and “[i]dentity theft [initiated] by [Defendant and others] falsifying Plaintiff’s primary, true . . . residence.” (Id. at 7). Plaintiff seeks compensatory, cumulative, and punitive damages in the amount of three million dollars and injunctive relief. (Id. at 10).

         B. Procedural Background

         Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, sued Defendant and others on February 4, 2014. (ECF No. 1). The court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3) and Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on March 21 (ECF No. 4). The court consolidated two cases brought by Plaintiff against Defendant and others, determined that Plaintiff’s amended complaint failed to comply with federal pleading standards, and granted Plaintiff the opportunity to file a second amended complaint comporting with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). (ECF No. 7).

         Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on April 18, adding another defendant. (ECF No. 5). On July 17, the court dismissed Plaintiff’s second amended complaint as to all named defendants except Defendant LaWonne Booker. (ECF No. 21). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed five additional motions: a motion of intimidation (ECF No. 25); a motion (ECF No. 26); a motion for default judgment (ECF No. 27); a motion regarding intentional infliction of emotional distress (ECF No. 28); and a motion regarding abuse of power (ECF No. 29). The court denied Plaintiff’s motions for failure to conform to the standards set by Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(b)(1)(B) and (C). (ECF No. 33, at 2).

         On March 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed two additional motions: a motion regarding perjury (ECF No. 39); and a motion regarding obstruction of justice (ECF No. 40). Subsequently, Defendant, also proceeding pro se, filed a motion to dismiss for improper service and because Plaintiff brought her case against an individual rather than a corporation. (ECF No. 41). On December 21, Plaintiff’s two motions and Defendant’s motion to dismiss were denied, and Defendant was given 21 days within which to file a response or answer to Plaintiff’s second amended complaint. (ECF No. 45). On February 2, 2016, the court directed Plaintiff to file a motion for entry of default, which Plaintiff subsequently filed. (ECF Nos. 46; 47).

         On February 29, 2016, Defendant filed the pending motion to dismiss, a motion to vacate any default, and an answer to the amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 49; 50; 51). Plaintiff was provided with a Roseboro notice, which advised her of the pendency of the motion to dismiss and her entitlement to respond within 17 days. (ECF No. 52); see Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th Cir. 1975) (holding that pro se plaintiffs should be advised of their right to file responsive material to a motion for summary judgment). On March 2, the court denied Plaintiff’s motion for clerk’s entry of default against Defendant. (ECF No. 53). Plaintiff ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.