Ngambo v. Chase
- Nelson Roman
- 7:20-cv-02224
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Ngambo v. Chase, Judge Roman granted Chase’s dismissal motion, dismissed the claims without prejudice, and allowed another amendment.
Jules Ngambo’s Fair Credit Reporting Act claims against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. were dismissed without prejudice, but Ngambo was allowed to file a second amended complaint by February 24, 2023.
What happened
In Ngambo v. Chase, Jules Ngambo, representing himself, sued JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. He alleged that Chase reported inaccurate debt information, failed to show that the information was disputed, and failed to investigate after he challenged it. Ngambo said the information harmed his reputation and access to credit.
The court ruled that Ngambo could not sue under the law’s provision concerning inaccurate reporting or disputed information because that provision does not allow private lawsuits. His investigation claim also lacked enough facts: he did not identify the specific inaccurate information, explain why Chase’s investigation was inadequate, or allege that a credit-reporting agency—not just Ngambo—sent Chase notice of the dispute.
Judge Nelson S. Roman granted Chase’s motion to dismiss and dismissed all claims in the amended complaint without prejudice. The court allowed Ngambo to file a second amended complaint by February 24, 2023, stating that failure to do so could cause the dismissed claims to become dismissed with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Ngambo v. Chase · No. 7:20-cv-02224
- Nelson Roman
- Feb. 3, 2023
Background
Jules Ngambo brought this self-represented lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., which he incorrectly named as “Chase.” He alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a federal law governing credit reporting and the handling of consumer credit information.
Ngambo alleged that he obtained credit reports from Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion on January 16, 2020, and contacted Chase by certified mail the same day about what he described as inaccurate reporting of a debt. He also disputed the information with the three credit-reporting agencies by certified mail. According to the amended complaint, the agencies confirmed that they were reporting the information as Chase had advised. Ngambo alleged that he waited 30 days without receiving a response from Chase, sent a notice of a pending lawsuit, and still received no answer. He further alleged that the information continued to appear on his credit report, damaging his reputation, reducing his credit lines, and causing him to be denied increased credit.
Ngambo’s amended complaint sought $1,350,000 and $150,000 in punitive damages. Chase moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim.
Claims and analysis
The court addressed three categories of claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act:
1. Reporting inaccurate information. Ngambo claimed that Chase violated the provision barring a person or entity from providing information known or reasonably believed to be inaccurate. The court held that this provision does not create a private right to sue. It therefore dismissed Count I.
2. Failing to report that information was disputed. Ngambo claimed that Chase failed to tell the credit-reporting agencies that the account information was disputed. The court held that this claim also arose under the provision for which there is no private right of action. It therefore dismissed Count II.
3. Failing to investigate. Ngambo claimed that Chase failed to investigate the disputed information. The court explained that this provision can support a private lawsuit when a furnisher of credit information receives notice of a dispute from a credit-reporting agency and fails to conduct a reasonable investigation. The court dismissed Count III because Ngambo did not identify specifically what information was inaccurate, did not explain why Chase’s investigation was deficient, and did not allege that Chase received notice from a credit-reporting agency rather than from Ngambo alone. The court also noted that the law requires investigation and reporting of the results; it does not require a furnisher automatically to delete a disputed account.
Leave to amend and disposition
The court had previously dismissed Ngambo’s original complaint and identified deficiencies in his claims. Ngambo then filed the amended complaint, but the court found that it still contained many of the same problems. Because Ngambo was representing himself, however, the court granted him leave to file a second amended complaint addressing the deficiencies.
The court granted Chase’s motion to dismiss. The claims in the amended complaint were dismissed without prejudice. Ngambo was given until February 24, 2023, to file a second amended complaint. The court stated that if he did not file one within the allowed time and could not show good cause, the claims dismissed without prejudice by this order would be deemed dismissed with prejudice. Chase was directed to answer or otherwise respond by March 17, 2023.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.