Saint-Fleur v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Background

Johanne Saint-Fleur alleged that JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. was responsible for the wrongful withdrawal of $89,781.98 from her Chase account. The complaint alleged that Saint-Fleur and Chase entered into an agreement in or around 2019 for Chase to create and maintain checking and savings accounts for her. The complaint asserted claims for negligence, conversion, fraud, and unjust enrichment, and sought a constructive trust. It did not attach the 2019 account agreement.

Chase removed the action from New York state court to the Southern District of New York based on diversity jurisdiction. Before filing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Chase argued that Saint-Fleur’s non-contract claims might be barred by the economic loss doctrine because the alleged losses fell within the scope of a contractual relationship. Chase did not submit the 2019 agreement either, although its pre-motion letter linked to a 2023 version of its form agreement.

Procedural Failures

The court found that Saint-Fleur’s counsel repeatedly failed to comply with court requirements. Counsel did not timely respond to Chase’s pre-motion letter, did not provide the 2019 account agreement despite requests and a court order directing that it be filed immediately, and did not substantively respond to Chase’s dismissal arguments. Counsel also failed to appear at the October 26, 2023 initial pretrial conference without requesting an adjournment, obtaining permission to be absent, or explaining the absence. Counsel entered a notice of appearance and filed what appeared to be a 2023 account agreement one month after the court’s deadline, but still did not provide the 2019 agreement or explain the repeated violations.

Court’s Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits involuntary dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute an action or comply with the Federal Rules or a court order. The court applied five factors: the length of the failures, whether the plaintiff was warned that noncompliance could lead to dismissal, likely prejudice to the defendant from further delay, the balance between court administration and the plaintiff’s opportunity to be heard, and whether a less severe sanction would work.

The court determined that the factors supported dismissal. It found that the failures continued for more than eight months; Saint-Fleur had been expressly warned that the action would be dismissed if the violations were not explained and corrected; further delay was likely to prejudice Chase; Saint-Fleur had been given an adequate opportunity to be heard; and lesser sanctions would be ineffective because repeated court orders had not prompted compliance.

Disposition

The court dismissed Saint-Fleur’s claims against Chase for failure to prosecute. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for Chase and close the case. The opinion did not decide whether Saint-Fleur’s negligence, conversion, fraud, or unjust enrichment claims were legally viable, and it did not rule on Chase’s proposed motion to dismiss.