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.

Trazell v. Wilmers

United States District Court, District Circuit

October 11, 2013

DELONTE EMILIANO TRAZELL, Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT G. WILMERS, et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

AMY BERMAN JACKSON, District Judge.

Plaintiff Delonte Emiliano Trazell, proceeding pro se, filed this case against defendants Manufactory and Traders Trust Bank ("MT&T"); Robert G. Wilmers, CEO and Director of MT&T; and Michael Trayder, in his capacity as an employee of MT&T (collectively "defendants"). In his amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendants repossessed his vehicle on June 19, 2012, in violation of:

• the Treaty of Watertown of 1776;
• the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution;
• 12 U.S.C. § 83;
• 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2;
• 18 U.S.C. §§ 112, 1341;
• 42 U.S.C. § 1983;
• United Nations Resolution 61/295 on the Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples;
• United Nations Resolution 60/147; and
• D.C. Municipal Regulations title 16, §§ 341.1, 341.3, 341.5.

Am. Compl. at 1-2 [Dkt. # 7].

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss ("Defs.' Mot.") [Dkt. # 13]; see also Defs.' Mem. in Supp. of Defs.' Mot. to Dimiss ("Defs.' Mem.") [Dkt. # 14]. In response, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment and a supplemental memorandum. Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. ("Pl.'s Mot.") [Dkt. # 17]; Pl.'s Supplemental Mem. in Supp. of Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. ("Pl.'s Supp. Mem.") [Dkt. # 23]. For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant defendants' motion to dismiss in part and deny it in part. The Court will also deny plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

BACKGROUND

Based on the limited information provided in the amended complaint, the Court has ascertained the following facts: Plaintiff is the registered owner of a Dodge Charger. Am. Compl. ¶ 1. On June 19, 2012, his vehicle was removed from southeast Washington, D.C., id. ¶¶ 1, 3(a), and MT&T employee Timothy Worrell left his business card on plaintiff's front door, id. ¶ 3. The vehicle is now being stored in Clinton, M.D. Id. ¶ 1. According to plaintiff, "[t]here is NO instrument of security' or document of title' between M & T BANKING CORP or MANUFACUTORY AND TRADERS INC. and [plaintiff]" regarding his vehicle. Id. ¶ 2.

Plaintiff filed suit giving rise to the instant case. In his amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendants violated several of his constitutional and statutory rights, international resolutions, and three District of Columbia Municipal Regulations. Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff opposed the motion to dismiss and filed his own motion for summary judgment.

STANDARD OR REVIEW

I. Motion to Dismiss

"To survive a [Rule 12(b)(6)] motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). In Iqbal, the Supreme Court reiterated the two principles underlying its decision in Twombly : "First, the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions." ...


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.