Johnson:Bene v. Wells Fargo of San Leandro

Background

Sean-Lyons Johnson Bene represented himself and was proceeding without paying filing fees. He sued Wells Fargo and four employees at its San Leandro branch: Ashley Corato, Cassandra Cabrera, Marisol Guzman, and Minxi Chen.

Johnson Bene alleged that Wells Fargo closed his checking account for inactivity without advance notice. The bank later told him that it had closed the account on November 30, 2021, because no qualifying, non-automatic transactions had posted during the preceding two months. A $5 monthly service fee had reduced the account balance to negative $2.24. The account agreement stated that an account with a zero balance could be closed without prior notice.

Johnson Bene also alleged that, when he sought to open a trust account, Chen required him to provide identification and his Social Security number even though the information was already in Wells Fargo's system. He claimed that this embarrassed him and violated federal privacy laws. He also cited the Consumer Credit Protection Act and other federal statutes in connection with the account closure.

Court's analysis

The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which requires review of a complaint filed by someone proceeding without paying filing fees before the court authorizes service. The court concluded that the complaint did not plausibly state a federal claim.

First, the court held that 42 U.S.C. § 408 is a criminal statute concerning Social Security fraud and does not create a private right of action. The court also held that the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, governs information systems maintained by federal agencies. Because Wells Fargo is not federally owned, the court said the Privacy Act did not apply to the alleged request for identification.

Second, the court rejected the claim based on the Consumer Credit Protection Act. That law requires certain disclosures about fees and credit terms, and the court found that Wells Fargo disclosed the $5 fee and the relevant account-closure provision. The court said Johnson Bene cited no authority requiring advance notice before closing the account under these circumstances.

Because the complaint did not establish a federal claim, the court found no federal-question jurisdiction. The court also said there was no basis for diversity jurisdiction because Johnson Bene and at least the Wells Fargo employees were alleged to reside in California.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint. It gave Johnson Bene until August 1, 2023, to file an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies. Alternatively, he could file a one-page notice of voluntary dismissal, which would operate as a dismissal without prejudice. If he did not amend by the deadline, the court said it would reassign the case to a district judge and recommend dismissal.

The opinion is signed by Laurel Beeler, United States Magistrate Judge.