United States District Court, D. Columbia.
MICHAEL B. DORSEY, Plaintiff
ENTERPRISE LEASING, et al., Defendants
MICHAEL B. DORSEY, Plaintiff, Pro se, Washington, DC.
For ENTERPRISE LEASING, Defendant: Edward Lee Isler, LEAD ATTORNEY, ISLER DARE P.C., Vienna, VA.
For EQUIFAX CREDIT REPORTING AGENCY, Defendant: Brian Robert Meiners, KING & SPALDING, LLP, Washington, DC.
For PNC BANK, Defendant: Joseph S. Ferretti, LEAD ATTORNEY, DUANE MORRIS, LLP, Washington, DC.
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Michael Dorsey, proceeding pro se, brought this action against Defendants PNC Bank, N.A., Enterprise Leasing, and Equifax. Before the Court is Defendant PNC Bank, N.A.'s  Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. PNC Bank argues that pro se Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. While the precise nature of the claims against each defendant is not wholly clear from the pleadings, it appears that Plaintiff claims that, first, PNC Bank improperly allowed money to be taken from Plaintiff's account and, second, PNC Bank failed to protect Plaintiff's personal information when information was leaked in connection with Target/American Express pre-paid cards. Upon consideration of the pleadings, the relevant legal authorities,
and the record as a whole, the Court GRANTS PNC Bank's  Motion to Dismiss. The Court concludes that neither the claim with respect to the improper removal of funds from Plaintiff's account nor the claim regarding Target/American Express prepaid cards states a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, the Court DISMISSES all claims against Defendant PNC Bank.
The facts underlying this case are far from clear, and the Court recites the facts only as they pertain to the Court's resolution of PNC Bank's Motion to Dismiss. For the purposes of this motion, the Court accepts as true the factual allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint. The Court also " consider[s] supplemental material filed by [this] pro se litigant in order to clarify the precise claims being urged." Greenhill v. Spellings, 482 F.3d 569, 572, 375 U.S.App.D.C. 477 (D.C. Cir. 2007). The Court does " not accept as true, however, the plaintiff's legal conclusions or inferences that are unsupported by the facts alleged." Ralls Corp. v. Comm. on Foreign Inv. in U.S., 758 F.3d 296, 315, 411 U.S.App.D.C. 105 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
Plaintiff claims that on or about May 2, 2011, PNC Bank improperly allowed money to be taken from his checking account to defray a debt associated with his son. Compl. at 4. Plaintiff does not state the account number or suggest that he is aware of the account number but unwilling to provide it in a public document. See generally id. Plaintiff claims that this debt was the result of a bogus claim from Equifax, another defendant in this action, which caused him to become a debtor to Enterprise, the third defendant in this action. Id. Plaintiff claims that on or about May 2, 2011, Defendant Enterprise charged Plaintiff's Visa card approximately $950 to cover the cost of renting a vehicle that Plaintiff claims he did not rent. Id. at 2. It appears that the alleged debit by Enterprise and the removal of money from the PNC account are two sides of the same coin, referring to the same transaction. See Pl.'s Opp'n to Def. Enterprise Leasing's Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 40 (" Pl.'s Enterprise Opp'n" ), at 2. In his Opposition
to PNC Bank's motion to dismiss, Plaintiff claims that he reported the erroneous debit between two days and two weeks after the debit occurred. See Pl.'s Opp'n at 3-4. He claims that the money was then redeposited into the account. See id. Plaintiff also claims that PNC ...