Ezeiruaku v. American Express Company

Background

Vincent O. Ezeiruaku, proceeding without a lawyer, sued American Express Company. He alleged that he bought four airline tickets on July 16, 2019, requested a refund the next day, and was not refunded. He also alleged that American Express charged him for more than 20 identical tickets issued in his daughter’s name for the same trip, at $1,808.65 per ticket. He asserted claims for breach of contract, fraud, and violation of the Fair Credit Billing Act, and sought actual and punitive damages.

American Express was served but did not appear or respond. Ezeiruaku moved for default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2). After a hearing, the court required evidence supporting liability and damages. Ezeiruaku submitted a redacted bank statement showing 20 tickets charged in his daughter’s name and a billing inquiry stating that $36,173 was under investigation. He also sought damages for four allegedly unrefunded tickets charged on July 16 and seven tickets charged on July 17, 2019.

Fair Credit Billing Act

The Fair Credit Billing Act establishes procedures for resolving disputed charges on qualifying credit accounts. A consumer must notify the creditor in writing within 60 days of the statement containing the alleged error, identify the amount of the error, and explain why the charge is believed to be erroneous. The creditor must acknowledge the notice and resolve the dispute or provide a written explanation within the statutory period.

The court held that Ezeiruaku’s allegations and evidence were sufficient to establish a Fair Credit Billing Act violation concerning the 20 tickets charged at $1,808.65 each. He alleged that he notified American Express of those charges through a billing inquiry, that American Express did not provide the investigation’s result, and that he was not refunded.

The court found the allegations concerning the four July 16 tickets and seven July 17 tickets insufficient. The filings did not show that Ezeiruaku notified American Express in writing about the amount and reasons for those specific billing errors.

Other Claims

The court found that the materials did not establish a breach-of-contract claim because Ezeiruaku did not identify the contract or the contractual language allegedly breached. The court also treated his allegations about a duty to maintain accurate billing as potentially asserting breach of fiduciary duty, but found no alleged relationship of trust or confidence beyond an ordinary commercial relationship.

The fraud claim was also not adequately pleaded. The court explained that Ezeiruaku did not allege or provide evidence showing that American Express knew the charges were false. The alleged failure to explain or resolve the billing investigation, standing alone, did not satisfy the requirement that fraud be pleaded with particular detail.

Damages and Amendment

The court awarded $36,173, representing the 20 tickets charged at $1,808.65 each. It did not award damages for the four July 16 tickets or seven July 17 tickets, and it did not award punitive damages because Ezeiruaku had not shown the wrongful motive, intentional misconduct, or reckless indifference generally required for such an award.

The court granted Ezeiruaku permission to amend his motion for default judgment by November 30, 2020, with documentary evidence showing timely written notice about the other tickets. If he did not amend the motion, the court would treat him as seeking judgment only for the 20 tickets.

Disposition

The court entered judgment for Ezeiruaku against American Express in the amount of $36,173. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the two default-judgment motion docket entries. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status.