Hurckes v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Background

Michael Hurckes, a lawyer proceeding without a lawyer, sued JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Chase). His First Amended Complaint asserted claims under the Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA), the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), and New York law for breach of contract and breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing.

The claims arose from three alleged errors concerning one transaction on Hurckes’s Chase credit-card bill. Hurckes alleged that he notified Chase of the errors in February 2022 and provided additional documentation in April 2022. He said Chase resolved two disputes in his favor but resolved the third dispute, involving $1,871.13, against him. The First Amended Complaint gave inconsistent accounts about whether Chase received the documentation for the third dispute. A May 4, 2022 letter submitted by Chase stated that Chase had reviewed the information and concluded that the charge was valid.

Court’s analysis

Chase moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to support a legally plausible claim. The court applied the general rule that factual allegations are accepted as true at this stage, but noted that a lawyer representing himself ordinarily does not receive the special consideration sometimes given to people without lawyers.

The court stated that an FCBA claim requires allegations showing: (1) a billing error; (2) timely notice to the card issuer; and (3) the issuer’s failure to follow the statute’s dispute procedures. Those procedures include acknowledging the notice within thirty days, investigating the dispute, and, within the required time, either correcting the account or giving a written explanation for concluding that no billing error occurred.

The court held that Hurckes’s FCBA claim failed because it challenged the result of Chase’s investigation rather than Chase’s compliance with those procedures. The court found that conclusory allegations that Chase failed to investigate or reached the wrong result were not enough. The court did not need to rely on Chase’s submitted documents to reach that conclusion, although it observed that those documents appeared to show Chase acknowledged the dispute and provided an explanation within the required periods.

The court also noted that Hurckes conceded there was no private right to sue under the FTC Act. Accordingly, the federal claims failed. The court mentioned that the submitted documentation raised a question about compliance with the rule requiring factual and legal support for filings, but it did not impose a sanction in this opinion.

Disposition

The court declined to allow Hurckes to amend his federal claims again. It explained that he had previously been given an opportunity to amend, had been warned that there would be no further opportunity to address the motion’s issues, and had not shown that another amendment could cure the problems.

The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—authority to hear related state-law claims—over Hurckes’s breach-of-contract and implied-covenant claims after dismissing the federal claims. Chase’s motion to dismiss was granted. The federal claims were dismissed, judgment was entered in favor of Chase, and the case was closed. The opinion does not separately state a prejudice qualifier for the state-law claims.