United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
GWENDOLYN D. GLENN, Plaintiff,
U.S. BANK, Defendant.
OPINION & ORDER
D. PETERSON DISTRICT JUDGE
plaintiff Gwendolyn D. Glenn has sued defendant U.S. Bank. On
July 8, 2016, I issued an order directing Glenn to file an
amended complaint that clarified the amount in controversy.
Dkt. 4. But instead of filing an amended complaint in this
case, Glenn filed another lawsuit against U.S. Bank.
Glenn v. U.S. Bank, No. 16-cv-509 (W.D. Wis. filed
July 18, 2016). To better understand Glenn's complaints,
and to determine the best way to manage these apparently
redundant cases, I held a Spears hearing on August
3, 2016. Dkt. 5 and Dkt. 8.
hearing, Glenn made it clear that the second lawsuit, No.
16-cv-509, was the same as the first, and I administratively
closed that case as redundant. Glenn also clarified her
allegations at the hearing: U.S. Bank has withheld money from
and closed Glenn's bank accounts without her permission.
Glenn explained that she received approximately $16 million
in settlement proceeds that she had deposited with U.S. Bank
and that she does not know what happened to that money or how
to access it. I granted Glenn leave to proceed against U.S.
Bank on her claim for mishandling her accounts. Dkt. 9.
U.S. Bank has filed a motion to dismiss Glenn's claim,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt.
13. U.S. Bank contends that Glenn's own submissions
indicate that she received approximately $5, 000 in
settlement proceeds-as opposed to $16 million-and that, as a
result, her claim is not plausible. The allegations are
internally inconsistent, and U.S. Bank contends that, as a
result, they cannot state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Because Glenn has changed her story once again and
has yet to submit documentary support for her claim, I will
grant U.S. Bank's motion.
motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) tests the
complaint's legal sufficiency. To state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, a complaint must contain a
“short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2). Rule 8 “does not require ‘detailed
factual allegations, ' but it demands more than an
accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A complaint must contain “more
than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of
the elements of a cause of action will not do[.] . . .
Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level[.]” Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Bank echoes concerns that I have raised in previous orders.
Glenn's allegations appear to contradict settlement
documents that she filed with the court that indicate that
she received approximately $5, 000-as opposed to $16
million-as a result of legal settlements. I granted Glenn
leave to proceed after the Spears hearing in the
hopes that she and U.S. Bank would clarify the record and the
amount in controversy.
response to U.S. Bank's motion to dismiss, Glenn states
that she is asking for only $15, 214.15 in damages. Dkt. 17.
She expressly states that she does not want the $64 billion
or the $16 million that she has claimed in the past.
Id. at 2. She concedes that, by her own new
calculations, her claim is worth only $15, 214.15.
Id. (“[T]his is what I know from my bank
statement all of my ending balance together, came out to be
$15, 214.15[.]”). Glenn has not submitted any documents
or records to support her claim to $15, 000.
response is only the latest in a long line of ever-changing
requests for relief. The record documents well my concerns
with Glenn's allegations, particularly the sums of money
that she has claimed are at issue. See Dkt. 4, at 4
(“But plaintiff's allegations fall short of
plausible, especially in light of the fact that she has
previously asked courts for fantastical amounts of
money-millions (or even billions) of dollars in some
instances-and plaintiff has submitted documents that indicate
that the settlements she received were for much
less.”). I directed service of Glenn's complaint
following the Spears hearing because she explained
that she had additional settlement documents that could
account for the $16 million she requested. Now, it turns out,
Glenn needs to amend her story yet again: not only does she
concede that her claim is not worth $16 million, but she
offers a new, equally unsupported claim for $15, 000 in its
place, without submitting the documents she referenced at the
Spears hearing or even explaining how or why she
thinks she is owed $15, 000. At this point, Glenn's
claim-whether for $16 million or $15, 000-is in direct,
unresolved tension with the settlement documents in the
record, and she has not alleged a plausible claim for relief.
Glenn has not stated a claim upon which relief can be
granted, and I will grant U.S. Bank's motion to dismiss.
Defendant U.S. Bank's motion to dismiss, Dkt. 13, is
clerk of court is directed to enter judgment for defendant
and close ...