FLORES v. CITIBANK, N.A.

Background

Valerie L. Flores, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Citibank, N.A. She said she had held a Citibank card since 2013 and that Citibank recently increased her monthly minimum payment to more than $225, even though the minimum payment had previously been no more than $85 when the card was maxed out. She said she closed the card to reduce the payment and believed Citibank had scammed her. She also said closing the card would harm her credit score for 7 to 10 years.

Flores referred to the Fair Credit Reporting Act and alleged that Citibank was committing financial fraud by making her pay three times the normal minimum payment. The court understood her complaint as potentially asserting state-law fraud claims rather than a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Flores appeared to seek $79,400 in damages, consisting of $75,000 and a $4,400 balance.

Jurisdiction analysis

The court examined whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the case. It considered federal-question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction.

For federal-question jurisdiction, the court explained that a claim must arise under the Constitution, federal law, or a treaty. Although Flores mentioned the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the court found that she alleged nothing suggesting that her claims fell under that statute. The court therefore did not treat her allegations as establishing federal-question jurisdiction.

For diversity jurisdiction, the court explained that the parties generally must be citizens of different states and that the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. Flores alleged that both she and Citibank were citizens of New York. The court noted, however, that a national bank such as Citibank is considered a citizen of the state designated as the location of its main office for diversity purposes, and it stated that Citibank appeared to be a citizen of South Dakota. The court therefore concluded that the parties appeared to be diverse. But Flores did not allege facts showing that her state-law claims satisfied the requirement that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). Because Flores was representing herself and might be able to allege additional facts establishing jurisdiction, the court granted her 30 days to amend her complaint and provide the required details. If she did not amend within that period, the court said the Clerk of Court would be directed to enter a judgment dismissing the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Flores permission to proceed without prepaying appeal fees. The court directed the Clerk to keep the matter open until a civil judgment was entered.