Weiner v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Background

Marianna Weiner sued JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Chase), alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act, a federal law governing consumer credit disclosures and certain credit-card practices. She alleged that Chase issued an unsolicited credit card in her name and that unauthorized charges were made on it.

According to the amended complaint, Weiner briefly partnered with Marc N. Benhuri to form 200 Central Park South Dentistry in September 2017. She opened a Chase business bank account for that entity in November 2017. A few months later, Chase sent her a credit card that she said she never requested, authorized, or activated. Benhuri allegedly charged more than $18,000 to the card for his personal dental practice without Weiner’s knowledge or consent.

A Chase fraud-department representative contacted Weiner in March 2018 and told her about the charges. After Weiner said she had not applied for or activated the card, the representative told her Chase would reverse the charges and close the account. Weiner’s counsel sent Chase a certified letter in April 2018 repeating those concerns and requesting information and documents. Chase received the letter but did not respond. Weiner filed this action in May 2021.

Chase’s Motion

Chase moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. Chase argued that Weiner’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations, which is the deadline for filing a lawsuit.

Court’s Analysis

The Truth in Lending Act requires an action to be filed within one year after the violation occurs. The court explained that courts in the relevant federal appellate circuit measure that period from when a consumer would reasonably have been put on notice that a violation occurred.

The court concluded that Weiner was on notice in March 2018, when Chase’s representative told her that an unsolicited card had been opened in her name and that unauthorized charges had been made. Weiner did not file suit until May 2021, more than one year later.

The court also considered equitable tolling, a doctrine that can extend a filing deadline in rare circumstances when extraordinary events prevent a party from filing on time despite reasonable diligence. The court determined that equitable tolling did not apply. Although Chase’s representative said the charges would be reversed and the account closed, Chase did not confirm that this had happened, and Weiner allegedly waited more than three years after sending the April 2018 letter before suing.

Ruling

Judge J. Paul Oetken granted Chase’s motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the action as time barred and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Docket Number 13 and close the case. The opinion does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.