Sneva v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: August 30, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00060
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 FILED IN THE 2 U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 Aug 30, 2023 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 TREVOR SNEVA, an individual, 10 Plaintiff, No. 2:23-CV-00060-SAB 11 v. 12 JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., a ORDER GRANTING 13 national bank; and DOES 1–10, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 14 Defendants. DISMISS; GRANTING 15 PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE 16 AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND 17 DISMISSING DOE 18 DEFENDANTS 19 20 Before the Court is Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A.’s Motion to 21 Dismiss, ECF No. 10. Plaintiff is represented by Kirk D. Miller. Defendant is 22 represented by John S. Devlin, III and Katie Bass. The motion was considered 23 without oral argument. 24 Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. However, 25 the Court finds that amendment of the Complaint is not futile. Pursuant to the 26 liberal standard for amendments, Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended 27 complaint. 28 // 1 Complaint 2 The following derives from Plaintiff’s operative Complaint, ECF No. 7. 3 Plaintiff resides in Spokane County, Washington and is an account holder and 4 customer of Defendant. On December 19, 2022, Plaintiff received a text message 5 appearing to be from Defendant, which indicated someone was attempting to 6 withdraw or transfer funds from his bank account. Someone claiming to represent 7 Defendant then called Plaintiff and asked for information regarding his bank 8 account. Plaintiff refused to provide the information. However, $27,800.33 was 9 withdrawn from his bank account through three separate transactions that took 10 place in Florida. 11 Plaintiff contacted Defendant after discovering the transactions and 12 Defendant opened a fraud investigation. Defendant informed Plaintiff that they 13 believed he was part of the fraud and had intentionally given his bank information 14 to cheat the bank. Plaintiff claims there was no evidence he was involved in the 15 fraudulent activity, and he did not authorize the payments. Plaintiff states that 16 Defendant outsourced the investigation and ultimately determined that Plaintiff 17 was responsible for the charges to his bank account. 18 Plaintiff claims Defendant unlawfully permitted the fraudulent withdrawals, 19 and any reasonable procedure to prevent fraudulent money transfer would have 20 flagged the transfers and prevented them from completing. Plaintiff alleges 21 Defendant did not contact him in any way prior to allowing the transfers, and 22 Defendant still fails to maintain adequate procedures to address fraudulent activity 23 and perform investigatory duties. He asserts that Defendant willfully and 24 negligently refused to properly investigate his claim, and Defendant’s conclusion 25 that Plaintiff was responsible for the charges was false, reckless, and defamatory. 26 Plaintiff presents four causes of action for (1) violations of the Washington 27 Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”), (2) negligence, (3) unjust enrichment, and 28 (4) violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”). 1 Legal Standard 2 A complaint must contain “a short and plaint statement of the claim showing 3 that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Federal Rule of Civil 4 Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a party to move for dismissal if the plaintiff has failed to 5 state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Dismissal 6 under this rule is only proper if there is either a “lack of a cognizable legal theory” 7 or “the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” Taylor 8 v. Yee, 780 F.3d 928, 935 (9th Cir. 2015); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 9 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court 10 accepts the allegations in the complaint as true and construes the pleading in the 11 light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Lazy Y Ranch Ltd. v. 12 Behrens, 546 F.3d 580, 588 (9th Cir. 2008). However, this does not require the 13 Court “to accept as true legal conclusions couched as factual allegations.” Parents 14 for Privacy v. Barr, 949 F.3d 1210, 1221 (9th Cir. 2020). 15 The plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is 16 plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A 17 claim is plausible on its face when “the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows 18 the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 19 misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The allegations 20 must be enough to raise the right to relief above a speculative level. Twombly, 550 21 U.S. at 555. It is not enough that a claim for relief be merely “possible” or 22 “conceivable”; instead, it must be “plausible on its face.” Id. at 556. 23 Discussion 24 Defendant argues Plaintiff failed to state a claim for violations of the UCC 25 and CPA, negligence, and unjust enrichment. Defendant contends the case should 26 be dismissed because, among other things, Plaintiff did not (1) specify which 27 provisions of the UCC it violated, (2) did not allege that Defendant owed a duty to 28 Plaintiff, (3) did not allege that Plaintiff conferred a benefit on Defendant, and (4) 1 did not claim Defendant’s conduct had the capacity to injure others. In his response 2 brief, Plaintiff provides further specifications of his legal claims and factual 3 allegations. 4 In this case, Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 5 The factual and legal allegations presented in Plaintiff’s response brief are not 6 found in the operative Complaint. However, the Court concludes amendment of the 7 complaint is not futile. Thus, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended 8 complaint curing the deficiencies noted in Defendant’s motion. 9 Moreover, Plaintiff has named Does 1-10 as Defendants in the above- 10 captioned matter. Barring unusual circumstances, “Doe pleading” is not permitted 11 in the Ninth Circuit. Craig v. United States, 413 F.2d 854, 856 (9th Cir. 1969; see 12 also General Orders 84-37, 13-37-1. Here, Plaintiff has not alleged any unusual 13 circumstances to justify the use of Doe pleading. Thus, the Court dismisses 14 Defendants Does 1-10 from the case. 15 // 16 // 17 // 18 // 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A.’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 10, is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint on or before 5|| October 13, 2023. 3. Defendant Does 1-10 are DISMISSED without prejudice. 4. The Court directs the District Court Clerk to terminate Defendant 8|| Does 1-10 from the above-captioned matter. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is hereby directed to file this Order and provide copies to counsel. 11 DATED this 30th day of August 2023. 12 13 14 by Ses than 16 Seley Sestha 7 Stanley A. Bastian Ig Chief United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

MD CTIA RYOTEATT ARTO ATATUIART TATRTONATOOowke