Nordheim v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A.

Background

Odin Nordheim, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, sued JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. He alleged that Chase closed his bank account without notice, sent him a check for the $77.56 balance, refused to reopen the account, and would not allow him to open another account. He also alleged that a teller questioned him publicly, a security guard approached him aggressively, and other banks rejected his attempts to open accounts, possibly because Chase shared information about him.

Nordheim asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the Fourteenth Amendment. He alleged discrimination based on his disability and asylum status, wrongful disclosure of financial information, damage to his financial reputation and creditworthiness, and emotional distress. He requested $10 million, litigation costs, an apology, and an injunction against further discrimination or blacklisting.

Screening Standard

Because Nordheim was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court had to screen the complaint before directing the United States Marshal to serve Chase. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally valid claim, or seeks money from a defendant immune from that relief. The court explained that a complaint is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. It found that Nordheim’s complaint was not frivolous, but it concluded that the complaint generally lacked facts supporting legally cognizable claims.

Analysis

For the discrimination claims, the court explained that Section 1981 prohibits racial discrimination in contracting and does not prohibit disability discrimination. It also said that a person may not be disadvantaged in activities protected by Section 1981 solely because of alien status. Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits disability discrimination by a private entity operating a place of public accommodation, and banks can qualify as public accommodations for purposes of injunctive relief. The court said Nordheim needed to provide more information about his disability, asylum status, and how Chase would have known about them. It noted that an Americans with Disabilities Act violation also violates California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

For the financial-disclosure claims, the court said the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act does not create a private right to sue. It identified a potential claim under California’s Financial Information Privacy Act, which restricts certain disclosures of nonpublic personal information to unaffiliated third parties. The court also explained that the Fair Credit Reporting Act requires accurate information supplied to consumer-reporting agencies. But Nordheim alleged no facts showing that Chase disclosed his credit information; he pleaded only suspicions. The court said he needed to provide more facts.

The court rejected the Fourteenth Amendment theory as pleaded because that amendment requires government action, and Nordheim alleged conduct by Chase, a private bank. The court also discussed potential state-law claims for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and unfair competition. It said Nordheim needed facts showing false statements to other financial institutions, the elements of severe emotional distress caused by extreme and outrageous conduct, and a valid underlying legal violation supporting the unfair-competition claim. The court said it could address the state claims because the allegations likely established diversity jurisdiction, based on the stated amount in controversy and the citizenship allegations described in the order.

Sealing Request and Disposition

Nordheim requested sealing of confidential information, including Social Security numbers, and said he had filed redacted documents. The court found that no such documents had been filed and that the public filings did not contain private information. It denied the motion to seal without prejudice to a fuller showing under the court’s local rule.

Judge Laurel Beeler ordered Nordheim to file a supplement to his complaint with additional supporting facts by July 28, 2025. The order warned that failure to do so may result in dismissal of his claims. Thus, this order was a screening directive and did not itself dismiss the case.