Ha v. Barclays Bank Delaware

Background

Sally Ha, representing herself, filed a First Amended Complaint alleging one breach-of-contract claim against Barclays Bank Delaware. Ha alleged that she opened a credit-card account with Barclays in June 2016. She claimed that she satisfied her contractual obligations by sending Barclays notices, bills of exchange, and other documents that she said required Barclays to apply positive credits to the account and pay amounts due. She also alleged that Barclays closed her account without her authorization.

Ha additionally referred to sections 16 and 29 of the Federal Reserve Act and argued that Rule 10b-5 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 applied because Barclays was involved in exchanging securities.

Court’s analysis

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court determined that Delaware law governed the contract claim because the agreement said it would be governed by Delaware law and, when applicable, federal law.

Under Delaware law, a breach-of-contract claim requires a contractual obligation, a breach of that obligation, and resulting damage. The court found that Ha plausibly alleged an agreement existed. But it found that she did not identify a contract provision requiring Barclays to accept her bills of exchange or related documents as payment. The court also found that the agreement expressly allowed Barclays to suspend or close the account at any time and for any reason, so Ha did not allege a breach based on the account’s closure.

The court further found that Ha did not identify a contract term requiring Barclays to provide her with a monthly amount of credit regardless of whether she made the required minimum payment. Because the claimed damage did not result from an actual contract term, the court found that she had not adequately alleged resulting damage.

The court rejected the asserted Federal Reserve Act claims because sections 16 and 29 do not create a private cause of action, meaning an individual cannot sue under those provisions. It also found that Ha had not pleaded a securities-law violation or a transaction involving a security, and that the agreement appeared to be a standard open-ended credit-card agreement rather than an investment agreement.

Disposition

The court considered whether Ha should be allowed to amend her complaint. Although the court noted that self-represented plaintiffs are often given an opportunity to amend, it found that amendment would be futile. It reasoned that Ha’s theory—that she could pay the credit-card balance with documents the court described as legally baseless—had been repeatedly rejected by courts, and that she offered no suggestion that amendment could cure the deficiencies.

Judge Beth Freeman granted Barclays’s motion to dismiss without leave to amend. The order states that Ha’s claim was dismissed with prejudice.