Fayton v. JPMorgan Chase Bank
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:25-cv-06663
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Fayton v. JPMorgan Chase, Magistrate Judge Aaron ordered Rose Fayton to sign the complaint by October 7 or risk a dismissal recommendation.
Rose Fayton and Lisbeth Talbert, who are required to comply with the signature and representation directives; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., whose motion to dismiss remains awaiting a briefing schedule.
What happened
In Rose Fayton and Lisbeth Talbert v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Lisbeth Talbert filed the case without a lawyer, but the complaint named her mother, Rose Fayton, as a plaintiff and was signed only by Talbert. The bank removed the case to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss, including an argument that Talbert lacked the right to bring the claims because she was not the bank-account holder.
The court ordered Fayton to sign the complaint or file a signed amended pleading by October 7, 2025. The court warned that failing to do so, or failing to respond to the order, may lead to a recommendation that her claims be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The court also stated that Talbert cannot represent Fayton or bring claims on her mother’s behalf. The court will set a schedule for briefing the bank’s motion to dismiss afterward.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron issued the order. He did not decide the bank’s motion to dismiss or the standing argument; the order addressed the signature and representation issues and postponed the motion briefing schedule.
The detailed version
- Fayton v. JPMorgan Chase Bank · No. 1:25-cv-06663
- Stewart Aaron
- Sept. 23, 2025
Background
Lisbeth Talbert, representing herself, filed the action in New York Supreme Court, New York County, on July 14, 2025. The complaint listed both Talbert and her mother, Rose Fayton, as plaintiffs, but only Talbert signed it. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. removed the action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on August 12, 2025, and filed a motion to dismiss on September 22, 2025.
Among other arguments, Chase asserted that Talbert lacked standing—the legal ability to pursue the claims—because she was not the Chase account holder. The order did not decide that argument or any other issue raised in the motion to dismiss.
Order
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) requires a court filing to be signed by an attorney or, when a party is unrepresented, by that party personally. The court ordered Fayton to sign the complaint or file an amended pleading bearing her signature no later than October 7, 2025.
The court stated that failure to sign a pleading or otherwise respond to the order may result in a recommendation to the District Judge that Fayton’s claims be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The order did not itself dismiss any claims.
The court also advised Talbert and Fayton that Talbert may not represent Fayton or assert claims on Fayton’s behalf because a person representing herself cannot represent another self-represented litigant. The court stated that, after Fayton’s response, it would set a briefing schedule for Chase’s motion to dismiss. The order also provided information about a free, limited-scope legal-services project for self-represented parties.
Disposition and Classification
Judge Stewart D. Aaron issued a procedural order concerning the signature, representation, and scheduling issues. The court did not rule on the motion to dismiss, the standing issue, or the merits of the claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.