Payton v. Wells Fargo Bank
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-06019
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Payton v. Wells Fargo Bank, Judge Stanton dismissed Payton’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction but allowed 30 days to replead.
Jonathan Payton’s complaint against Wells Fargo Bank was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, but he was allowed 30 days to file an amended complaint.
What happened
In Jonathan Payton v. Wells Fargo Bank, Jonathan Payton alleged that a Wells Fargo employee made false claims to the bank’s fraud department while Payton was opening a checking account. Payton said the account was locked for two to three weeks and sought $100,000 and unspecified court orders.
The court found that Payton’s cited federal statutes did not provide a valid private claim, and that he did not allege discrimination based on a protected characteristic. The court also found that he had not shown the parties were citizens of different states or explained why his requested damages met the jurisdictional amount.
Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(h)(3), but granted Payton 30 days to file an amended complaint. The court said it would enter judgment if he did not amend within that time.
The detailed version
- Payton v. Wells Fargo Bank · No. 1:25-cv-06019
- Laura Swain
- Nov. 26, 2025
Background
Jonathan Payton appeared without a lawyer and proceeded without prepaying filing fees. He alleged that Jimmy Wu, a Wells Fargo Bank employee, discriminated against him while Payton was opening a checking account at a Wells Fargo location in New York. Payton alleged that Wu said he had refused to provide identification and documents, which caused the bank’s fraud department to place the account on hold. Payton said the account remained locked for two to three weeks, required multiple branch visits, and did not receive a $300 new-checking-account promotion after he opened an account at another branch. He sought $100,000 in damages and unspecified injunctive relief.
Federal-Question Jurisdiction
Payton invoked federal-question jurisdiction and cited 12 U.S.C. §§ 5581 and 5481(14), and 15 U.S.C. §§ 41–48. The court held that these statutes did not provide a private right of action for the allegations in the complaint. The court also considered possible federal antidiscrimination laws, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It found that Payton did not allege facts showing discrimination based on a protected characteristic such as race, religion, national origin, or sex. The court therefore concluded that the complaint did not establish federal-question jurisdiction.
Diversity Jurisdiction
The court also found no basis for diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction. Payton stated that he resided in New York and provided Wells Fargo addresses in New York and California, but he did not identify the bank’s main office or otherwise show that the parties were citizens of different states. Although he requested $100,000, he did not provide facts explaining how he calculated that amount or showing that he could recover it.
Disposition
Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The court granted Payton 30 days’ leave to file an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies. The court directed the Clerk of Court to keep the matter open until a civil judgment is entered and stated that judgment would be entered if Payton did not timely amend.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.