Surrey v. Fidelity Investments
- P. Castel
- 1:25-cv-03263
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Surrey v. Fidelity Investments: Judge Castel granted JP Morgan Chase and Citibank’s motion to dismiss negligence claims, dismissing them with prejudice.
Chris Surrey’s negligence claims against JP Morgan Chase and Citibank were dismissed with prejudice. The order does not state how the claims against the other defendants were resolved.
What happened
In Chris Surrey v. Fidelity Investments, et al., defendants removed the action from state court based on diversity jurisdiction. Surrey later amended his complaint. JP Morgan Chase and Citibank moved to dismiss the claims against them, but Surrey did not respond by the deadline or request more time.
The claims against those two defendants alleged negligence. Surrey claimed JP Morgan Chase should have investigated a returned check before sending Citibank a fraud alert, and that Citibank should have investigated the alert before freezing his accounts for 90 days. The court applied New York law, which generally does not impose duties on banks to their depositors beyond their account contracts in circumstances like these.
Judge P. Kevin Castel found the motion well founded and granted it. JP Morgan Chase and Citibank were dismissed with prejudice. The order does not state how the claims against the other defendants were resolved.
The detailed version
- Surrey v. Fidelity Investments · No. 1:25-cv-03263
- P. Castel
- Oct. 16, 2025
Background
Defendants removed the action from state court, invoking federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. Surrey then amended his complaint as of right. JP Morgan Chase and Citibank later filed a joint motion to dismiss. Surrey did not oppose the motion by the deadline set by the court, did not seek an extension, and did not move to amend by the deadline for amendment motions. The court reviewed the unopposed motion, the amended complaint, and Surrey’s response to the defendants’ earlier pre-motion letter.
Claims Against JP Morgan Chase and Citibank
The only claims alleged against the two moving defendants were negligence claims. According to the complaint, Surrey deposited into his JP Morgan Chase account a check drawn on Wells Fargo Bank that was returned unpaid. JP Morgan Chase then issued a fraud alert to Citibank, which caused a 90-day freeze on Surrey’s accounts.
The claim against JP Morgan Chase alleged that the bank had a duty to investigate the circumstances surrounding the returned check before issuing the fraud alert. The claim against Citibank alleged that it had a duty to investigate JP Morgan Chase’s fraud alert before freezing Surrey’s accounts.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied New York law. It explained that, absent circumstances not present here, a bank does not owe its depositors a duty outside the duties created by the account contract. The court also noted that Surrey had not alleged that the conduct fell outside the scope of the contracts or that either bank had assumed duties independent of those contracts. The court stated that Surrey had not alleged or referenced the terms of the contracts.
Disposition
The court granted the motion to dismiss. JP Morgan Chase and Citibank were dismissed with prejudice. The order also notes that, as it was being prepared for filing, Surrey consented to dismissal with prejudice of those two defendants. The opinion does not state the disposition of claims against the other defendants.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it grants a motion to dismiss under the pleading rules rather than deciding the underlying dispute after a merits determination.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.