United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Knoxville Division
PAMELA L. REEVES, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on the defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank's motion to dismiss the pro se plaintiff's complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff alleges she took two loans from JPMorgan in the amounts of $191, 000 and $55, 000. She claims JPMorgan breached their loan agreements by failing to "lend the plaintiff lawful money of the United States and instead substituted a check with the intended purpose of circulating it as money." Additionally, the plaintiff accuses JPMorgan of fraud and racketeering, usury, and violations of the Truth in Lending Act. Because the plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted, the defendant's motion to dismiss will be granted, and the plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed.
I. Standard of Review
Rules 8(a) and 12(b)(6) require the complaint to articulate a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). This requirement is met when "the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)). A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) requires the court to construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept all the complaint's factual allegations as true, and determine whether the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the plaintiff's claims that would entitle the plaintiff to relief. Meador v. Cabinet for Human Resources, 902 F.2d 474, 475 (6th Cir. 1990) cert. denied, 498 U.S. 867 (1990).
The court may not grant a motion to dismiss based upon a disbelief of a complaint's factual allegations. Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196, 1198 (6th Cir. 1990); Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 377 (6th Cir. 1995) (noting that courts should not weigh evidence or evaluate the credibility of witnesses). The court must liberally construe the complaint in favor of the party opposing the motion. Id. However, the complaint must articulate more than a bare assertion of legal conclusions. Scheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434 (6th Cir. 1988). "[The] complaint must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory." Id. (citations omitted).
On June 17, 2003, JPMorgan approved the plaintiff for a loan in the amount of $191, 000 at a 4.804% annual interest rate. In turn, the plaintiff executed a "mortgage, deed of trust, note, etc." [R. 1-1, p. 5]. JPMorgan sent a check to the plaintiff for the money, and she has since made payments of principal and interest totaling $151, 160.94. On January 26, 2005 JPMorgan entered into a second loan agreement with the plaintiff for $55, 000. According to the complaint, she has made payments of principal and interest totaling $50, 971.94 on the second loan.
Based on these two loans, the plaintiff asserts the following four legal claims:
1. the defendant breached its contract(s) by "fail[ing] to lend the plaintiff lawful money of the United States and instead substitut[ing] a check with the intended purpose of circulating it as money;"
2. JPMorgan and other unnamed parties associated with the writing and processing of the $191, 000 check "are in collusion in using the U.S. Mails and Wire Services to collect on this unlawful debtm, " and are engaged in a "pattern of racketeering activity" for which plaintiff seeks "triple damages;"
3. the interest rates charged on both loans is usurious "due to the fact that the actual amount of lawful money risked by [JPMorgan] in making the loan was less than 10% of the loan's face value;" and
4. JPMorgan violated the Truth in Lending Act by failing or refusing to disclose that "Plaintiff was the depositor and that the Defendant(s) risked none of their assets in exchange, or any assets of other depositors."
[R. 1-1, p. 6-8]. Based on these allegations, the plaintiff urges the Court to "empanel a Grand Jury to investigate [JPMorgan] for violations of Federal Antitrust laws and the Federal Racketeering laws... and for conspiracy to violate the plaintiff and other citizens [ sic ] Constitutional Rights." Id. The plaintiff also seeks damages in the amount of $191, 000 and $55, 000 for the loans and "three times this amount" ...