Clay v. Bank of America, N.A.

Page 1 of 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
AVE M. CLAY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 4:25 CV 1040 JMB
)
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Ave Marie Clay’s Motion to Seal Case (Doc.
6) and Defendant Bank of America, N.A.’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9). For the reasons set forth
below, the Motion to Seal is DENIED and the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
I. Background
Plaintiff Ave Maria Clay, who is proceeding pro se, filed a Petition in the Circuit Court of
St. Louis County, Missouri, on June 11, 2025 (Doc. 1-1). Plaintiff generally alleges that because
Defendant Bank of America failed to provide reasonable care of her bank account, it is liable for
breach of contract (Count I), negligence (Count II), and unjust enrichment (Count III). Plaintiff
maintains that she is entitled to compensatory damages, including “withheld funds, [ ] cancelled
travel, [ ] repossession-related losses, credit damage, [ ] other financial harm . . . and further relief
as the Court deems just and proper.” Defendant removed this matter on July 16, 2025, pursuant
to this Court’s diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, on the grounds that Plaintiff is a citizen of
Missouri, that Defendant is a citizen of North Carolina, and that the amount in controversy is in
excess of $75,000.
Case: 4:25-cv-01040-JMB Doc. #: 12 Filed: 10/28/25 Page: 1 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

Page 2 of 8
In particular, Plaintiff alleges that she deposited a valid $8,000 check into her Bank of
America savings account on or about May 31, 2024, and that approximately five days later, she
reported a fraudulent transaction in her checking account in the amount of $2,076.41 (Doc. 1-1, p.
2). Plaintiff further alleges that, following her report of the fraudulent transaction, Defendant
“froze” both her checking and savings accounts, rendering them inaccessible. Plaintiff claims that
this action was done without explanation. Plaintiff also asserts that in August 2024, Defendant
closed her bank accounts without her consent or an adequate explanation, and that in September
2024, Defendant briefly reopened these accounts to issue a cashier’s check. As to the
consequences of Defendant’s actions and its obligations, Plaintiff alleges:
(1) “The Defendant froze Plaintiff’s account without prior notice, preventing access
to all funds, including the pending deposit [of the $8,000 check into her savings
account].”
(2) “Plaintiff remained locked out of her account, which caused severe financial
hardship, canceled travel plans, and emotional distress.”
(3) “Defendant breached its contractual obligations by freezing the account without
just cause[.]”
(4) “Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care in managing her account
investigating fraud claims and maintaining accuracy with internal records.”
(5) Defendant retained access to plaintiff’s deposited funds . . . while preventing
Plaintiff from using them.”
(Doc. 1-1). For relief, Plaintiff seeks an award of compensatory damages “in excess of $100,000
including but not limited to $8,000 for withheld funds, $1,200 for canceled travel, $2,500 for
repossession-related losses, credit damage, and other financial harm,” damages for “emotional
distress and reputational harm,” punitive damages for “willful and malicious conduct,” and a Court
order “correcti[ng] any negative credit reporting” caused by Defendant’s actions (Doc. 1-1, p. 4).
Case: 4:25-cv-01040-JMB Doc. #: 12 Filed: 10/28/25 Page: 2 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

Page 3 of 8
Defendant filed its motion to dismiss on July 23, 2025, arguing that Plaintiff fails to state
a claim (Doc. 9). Plaintiff did not respond within the time allowed by Local Rule 4.01. The Court
finds the lack of response an admission of the merits of the motion.
As to her Motion to Seal, which was filed in state court, Plaintiff asserts that pleadings that
contain personal health information, private financial information, and mental health matters
should be sealed. The Court notes that Plaintiff’s allegations (and an affidavit in support of those
allegations) do not contain specific health or financial information that would otherwise be subject
to redaction or sealing in this Court. Plaintiff also has not supported her motion with any legal
authority that would justify sealing this entire matter. Accordingly, this motion must be denied.
II. Standard
The purpose of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is to test the legal sufficiency
of the complaint. To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), “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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim for relief “must include sufficient factual information to provide
the ‘grounds’ on which the claim rests, and to raise a right to relief above a speculative level.”
Schaaf v. Residential Funding Corp., 517 F.3d 544, 549 (8th Cir. 2008) (quoting Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555 & n.3). This obligation requires a plaintiff to plead “more than labels and conclusions,
and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 555.
On a motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true all of the factual allegations contained in
the complaint, even if it appears that “actual proof of those facts is improbable,” and reviews the
complaint to determine whether its allegations show that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id. at
Case: 4:25-cv-01040-JMB Doc. #: 12 Filed: 10/28/25 Page: 3 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

Page 4 of 8
555-56; Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 8(a)(2). However, the principle that a court must accept as true all of
the allegations contained in a complaint does not apply to legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
678 (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.”). Pro se pleadings are liberally construed; however, they still must
contain sufficient factual information to support a claim. Mungai v. University of Minnesota, 141
F.4th 959, 963 (8th Cir. 2025).
III. Discussion
1. Count I – Breach of Contract
Plaintiff contends that Defendant breached its contractual obligations by “freezing the
account without just cause, failing to make provisional funds accessible, and unreasonably
delaying resolution over three months.” To demonstrate breach of contract under Missouri law,1
a plaintiff must show (1) the existence and terms of a contract; (2) that plaintiff performed or
tendered performance pursuant to the contract; (3) breach of the contract by the defendant; and (4)
damages suffered by the plaintiff. Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d 843, 850
(8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Keveney v. Mo. Military Acad., 304 S.W.3d 98, 104 (Mo. 2010) (en
banc)). A plaintiff fails to state a claim for breach of contract if the Complaint does not specify
the “promises the defendant has breached.” Gillis v. Principia Corp., 832 F.3d 865, 872 & n.11
(8th Cir. 2016) “Vague references to unspecified ‘agreements’ are insufficient to state a claim for
1 Defendant’s motion cites to Missouri law in support of its arguments. It is unclear from the pleadings
whether Plaintiff’s claims are governed by Missouri law. However, “a federal court sitting in diversity borrows the
forum state’s choice-of-law rule.” Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Found., 596 U.S. 107, 115 (2022).
Missouri choice-of-law rules follow the “most significant relationship” test of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict
of Laws, Section 188(2) (1971), which requires balancing of several factors, such as (a) the place of contracting; (b)
the place of negotiation of the contract; (c) the place of performance; (d) the location of the subject matter of the
contract; and (e) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties.
Superior Equip. Co. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 986 S.W.2d 477, 480 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). Evaluating these factors, the
Court concludes that Missouri has the most significant relationship to the transactions at issue between Plaintiff and
Defendant.
Case: 4:25-cv-01040-JMB Doc. #: 12 Filed: 10/28/25 Page: 4 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

Page 5 of 8
breach of contract” because, at the very least, they do not put a defendant on notice of the claims
against it as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. See id. (quoting Reitz v. Nationstar
Mortg., LLC, 954 F. Supp.2d 870, 884 (E.D. Mo. 2013)).
Here, Plaintiff alleges that her bank account was frozen on June 11, 2024, and that she
remained locked out of her account for more than three months. She asserts that this conduct
constitutes a breach of Defendant’s contractual obligations, but she does not direct this Court to
any contracts that explain precisely what “contractual obligations” are owed to her. Plaintiff has
not attached the purported contracts to her Complaint, leaving this Court and Defendant unable to
discern precisely how any such contracts were breached.
Even if Plaintiff had attached the contract to her Complaint, she would still be required to
identify the specific contractual provision that Defendant allegedly violated. See Knowles v. TD
Ameritrade Holding Corp., 2 F.4th 751, 757 (8th Cir. 2021). In Knowles, the Eighth Circuit
affirmed dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) where the plaintiff failed to identify the contractual term
allegedly breached, holding that the mere existence of a contract is insufficient to state a claim. Id.
The same is true here. Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant’s conduct caused her damages,
including financial losses and emotional distress, are conclusory and unsupported by any
contractual provision. Such vague allegations are insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(6).
2. Count II - Negligence
To state a claim for negligence under Missouri law, the plaintiff must allege sufficient facts
that would show: “(1) the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, (2) the defendant breached
that duty, and (3) the defendant’s breach proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury.” Scott v. Dyno
Nobel, Inc., 967 F.3d 741 (8th Cir. 2020) (quoting Wieland v. Owner-Operator Servs., Inc., 540
Case: 4:25-cv-01040-JMB Doc. #: 12 Filed: 10/28/25 Page: 5 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

Page 6 of 8
S.W.3d 845, 848 (Mo. 2018)). Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant owed her a duty of reasonable
care in managing her account, investigating fraud claims, and maintaining accuracy with internal
records. Plaintiff claims that Defendant breached that duty by mishandling Plaintiff’s fraud report,
which resulted in inaccessible funds. Plaintiff argues that this conduct caused prolonged harm,
preventable hardship, and foreseeable damage.
Under Missouri law, the relationship between a bank and its depositor is one of debtor and
creditor, respectively. See Killoren v. First Nat. Bank in St. Louis, 127 F.2d 537, 543 (8th Cir.
1942); see also First Nat. Bank of Clinton v. Julian, 383 F.2d 329, 337-38 (8th Cir. 1967) (Unless
designated as a “special deposit,” which does not create a debtor-creditor relationship, an ordinary
deposit in a bank is “presumed to be a general deposit and the relationship created between the
bank and the depositor is that of debtor and creditor.”). Importantly, such a relationship between
bank and depositor is “founded upon contract.” See Bank of Marin v. England, 385 U.S. 99, 101
(1966). Accordingly, Plaintiff, a depositor, and Defendant, a bank, had a debtor-creditor
relationship governed by some contract between the parties and any such failure to comply with
the terms of the contract does not give rise to a negligence claim. See Pippin v. Hill-Rom Co., 615
F.3d 886, 889 (8th Cir. 2010).
Nonetheless, while a breach of contract generally does not give rise to tort liability under
Missouri law, courts may recognize a negligence claim where the alleged conduct involves
negligent misfeasance in performing contractual duties. See id. at 889-890. Here, Plaintiff asserts
that Defendant negligently mishandled her fraud report and failed to exercise reasonable care,
thereby preventing her access to funds. These vague allegations are devoid of any facts that would
raise Plaintiff’s claims from possible to plausible. As noted above, Plaintiff has failed to identify
any contract or contractual terms giving rise to such obligations and has failed to specify in what
Case: 4:25-cv-01040-JMB Doc. #: 12 Filed: 10/28/25 Page: 6 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

Page 7 of 8
manner Defendant committed negligent misfeasance. Such lack of detail fails to place Defendant
on notice of the claim against it.
Even assuming Plaintiff could establish the existence of a duty, she must also sufficiently
plead damages. Negligence claims cannot be premised solely on economic loss. Rockport
Pharmacy, Inc. v. Digital Simplistics, Inc., 53 F.3d 195, 198 (8th Cir. 1995). Recovery in tort,
including negligence, is generally limited to cases in which there has been “personal injury, or
property damage[.]” Id. (quoting R.W. Murray Co. v. Shatterproof Glass Corp., 697 F.2d 818,
828–29 (8th Cir. 1983)). When the alleged injury consists of emotional distress, Missouri law
further requires the plaintiff to plead facts showing that the distress was “medically diagnosable
and sufficiently severe to be medically significant.” Gordon v. City of Kansas City, Mo., 241 F.3d
997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2001) (discussing intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress).
Here, Plaintiff’s damages are primarily based on economic loss, but Plaintiff also alleges non-
economic loss such as emotional distress. These allegations are conclusory and lack sufficient
factual support to establish injury that is medically diagnosable and sufficiently severe. Because
Plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege facts establishing that Defendant owed her a duty, nor facts
supporting a legally sufficient non-economic injury, she has failed to state a claim for negligence
under Rule 12(b)(6).
3. Count III – Unjust Enrichment
Finally, the Court considers Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim. To state such a claim
under Missouri law, there must be allegations that: “(1) the plaintiff conferred a benefit on the
defendant; (2) the defendant appreciated the benefit; and (3) the defendant accepted and retained
the benefit under inequitable and/or unjust circumstances.” Ahern Rentals, Inc. v.
EquipmentShare.com, Inc., 59 F.4th 948, 957 (8th Cir. 2023) (quoting Binkley v. Am. Equity
Case: 4:25-cv-01040-JMB Doc. #: 12 Filed: 10/28/25 Page: 7 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

Page 8 of 8
Mortg., Inc., 447 S.W.3d 194, 199 (Mo. 2014) (en banc)). Here, Plaintiff alleges only that
Defendant retained access to her deposited funds while preventing her from using them. Beyond
this bare assertion, however, the Complaint contains no factual allegations showing that
Defendant’s retention of the funds was inequitable or unjust. Instead, Plaintiff’s allegations focus
primarily on the personal hardships she claims to have suffered due to Defendant’s conduct. Such
allegations, without showing inequity or injustice in the retention of the funds, are insufficient to
state a claim for unjust enrichment.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal (Doc. 6) is DENIED and Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9) is GRANTED. The Complaint is hereby DISMISSED without
prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
Dated this 28th day of October, 2025
MATTHEW T. SCHELP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:25-cv-01040-JMB Doc. #: 12 Filed: 10/28/25 Page: 8 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>