Montes v. Capital One Financial Corporation
- Beth Freeman
- 5:23-cv-04052
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Montes v. Capital One, Judge Freeman granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, allowing Omar Montes 45 days to amend standing and contract allegations.
Omar Montes and Capital One, National Association; the order allows Montes to amend his complaint rather than ending the case at this stage.
What happened
In Montes v. Capital One, Omar Montes alleged that an Instagram offer promised a $200 bonus for spending $500 in the first three billing cycles after opening a Quicksilver card. He said he applied, was approved, and never received the bonus, although the card agreement did not mention it.
The court ruled that Montes had not adequately connected his claimed injury to the Instagram advertisement because he did not clearly allege when he saw it or what it said. The court also ruled that he had not plausibly alleged a contract requiring Capital One to pay the bonus, because the written agreement did not promise it and the complaint did not adequately allege that the advertisement became part of the contract.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted Capital One, National Association’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Montes must file any amended complaint within 45 days of the order’s entry and attach a redlined version.
The detailed version
- Montes v. Capital One Financial Corporation · No. 5:23-cv-04052
- Beth Freeman
- Apr. 15, 2024
Background
Omar Montes alleged that he applied for a Quicksilver credit card through Capital One’s website in December 2022 after seeing a targeted Instagram offer. According to the second amended complaint, the offer promised a $200 cash sign-up bonus if a customer spent $500 during the first three billing cycles after opening the card. Montes was approved for the card, but the written agreement did not mention the bonus, and he was not paid it.
The second amended complaint asserted one claim described as breach of contract, including breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Capital One moved to dismiss on two grounds: lack of Article III standing and failure to state a claim.
Standing
Article III standing requires an injury in fact, a connection between the injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a remedy the court can provide. Capital One argued that Montes did not show that he applied for the card because of an advertisement or that he had seen an advertisement featuring the bonus.
The court granted the motion to dismiss Claim 1 for lack of standing with leave to amend. It found that Montes had not adequately alleged traceability, largely because the complaint did not make clear when he viewed the Instagram advertisement or what the advertisement said. The court stated that he might be able to add facts about the advertisement’s content and when he saw it.
Breach of Contract
The parties did not dispute that Virginia law governed the contract. Capital One argued that Montes had not identified a contract promising to pay the sign-up bonus.
The court granted the motion to dismiss Claim 1 for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. It explained that the User Agreement did not promise a sign-up bonus and that Montes had not alleged enough facts to make it plausible that the Instagram advertisement was part of the contract. The court also stated that Montes’s personal belief that the bonus was included in the contract was not enough. The court found that additional allegations about the advertisement and the sign-up process might show that the bonus was part of the contract.
Order
The court ordered that the defendant’s motion to dismiss was GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Montes must file any amended complaint no later than 45 days after the order’s entry and must attach a redlined complaint as an exhibit.
The opinion uses both “Capital One” and “Capitol One” in places, while the caption identifies the defendant as Capital One, National Association.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.