Pippin v. JPMorgan Chase Bank

1

JAMES PIPPIN, Plaintiff, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendant.

No. 4:24-CV-00552

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

December 10, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

AMANDA M. KNAPP UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is the Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s (“Defendant” or “Chase”) Motion to Dismiss. (ECF Docs 15, 15-1, 15-2, 15-3 (“Motion”).) The Motion was fully briefed and is ripe for decision. (ECF Docs 15, 16, 18.) In his opposition brief, Plaintiff James Pippin (“Mr. Pippin” or “Plaintiff”) requests leave to amend if the Court is inclined to grant Defendant's Motion. (ECF Doc. 16, p 9.) The parties have consented to the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73. (ECF Doc. 6).

For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Motion in part, DENIES the Motion in part, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, DENIES Plaintiff's request for Leave to Amend the Complaint, and REMANDS the remaining state law claims to the state court for further proceedings.

I. Background

A. Procedural History and Relevant Factual Allegations

Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint with Jury Demand in the Mahoning County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas on February 22, 2024. (ECF Doc. 1-1, pp. 4-14, Compl.) On February 25, 2024, Defendant removed the case to Federal Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C §§ 1331, 1367, 1441, and 1446. (ECF Doc. 1.)

The facts alleged in the Complaint are accepted as true for purposes of this Motion. Documents attached to Plaintiff's Complaint are also considered as appropriate. See Whittiker v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Tr. Co., 605 F.Supp.2d 914, 924 (N.D. Ohio 2009) (“In ruling on a motion to dismiss or motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court may . . . consider documents attached to, incorporated by, or referred to in the pleadings.”).

Chase is a national banking association formed under the laws of the United States. (Compl., ¶ 2.) Plaintiff is an African American male. (Id. at ¶ 1.) On June 8, 2020, Plaintiff opened savings and checking accounts at the Chase branch in Winterville, Ohio. (Id.) To open and maintain his accounts with Chase, Plaintiff was required to adhere to Chase's Deposit Account Agreement (“Account Agreement”). (Id.)

1. Check Deposit, Account Closure, and Return of Funds

Mr. Pippin knew Dijonae Stewart (“Ms. Stewart”) for three years through his relationship with her father. (Compl., ¶ 3.) As a beneficiary of her father's estate, Ms. Stewart received a $22,786.81 check (“the Check”) from the estate, payable to her and drawn on the estate's account at M&T Bank. (Id.) Ms. Stewart had no bank account, so she asked Mr. Pippin to cash the Check for her. (Id.) In exchange, she agreed to repay a $5,300 debt she owed to Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶ 3.) On or about May 23, 2023, Mr. Pippin and Ms. Stewart went to a Chase branch. (Id.) In the presence of branch manager Charles Worley (“Mr. Worley”), Ms. Stewart endorsed the Check to Mr. Pippin, who deposited the Check into his Chase checking account. (Id.)

Thereafter, Mr. Pippin received a letter from Chase dated June 2, 2023, which advised him that his Chase bank accounts had been closed; the letter was accompanied by a cashier's check in the amount of $8,918.21, payable to Mr. Pippin. (Compl., ¶ 4.) The cashier's check represented the balance of Mr. Pippin's savings account and $82.68 from his checking account. (Id.) Mr. Pippin then received a second letter from Chase dated June 7, 2023, which advised him that his accounts were closed; the letter was accompanied by a second cashier's check for $928, representing the balance of his checking account, payable to Mr. Pippin. (Id.)

Mr. Pippin contacted Chase to ask for an explanation of why his accounts were closed without prior notice and to request that Chase send him the $22,786.81 he deposited on May 23, 2023. (Compl., ¶ 5.) He spoke with Mr. Worley, with a Chase escalation official, and with personnel at the Chase branch in Youngstown, Ohio. (Id.) On July 5, 2023, Mr. Pippin sent a letter to Stacey Friedman (“Ms. Friedman”), Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Chase. (Id.) Ms. Friedman delegated the matter to the Chase Executive Office. (Id.) Chase did not transfer the $22,786.81 to Mr. Pippin. (Id.)

Mr. Pippin continued to communicate with the Chase Executive Office between July 10, 2023, and November 16, 2023, and continued to request his checking account balance. (Compl., ¶ 6.) Chase did not comply with any of Mr. Pippin's requests to explain why it closed his accounts or to give him the $22,786.81 he had deposited on May 23, 2023. (Id.)

M&T Bank sent Chase $22,786.81 per the Check. (Compl., ¶ 7.) Chase did not give these funds to Mr. Pippin. (Id.) Instead, Chase sent two cashier's checks, each in the amount of $22,786.81, one payable to Ms. Stewart's father's estate and one payable to Ms. Stewart. (Id. at ¶¶ 7, 48; ECF Doc. 1-1, p. 48 (copy of cashier's check made out to Ms. Stewart, dated November 10, 2023).)^[1] Mr. Pippin attempted to cash the cashier's check made out to Ms. Stewart using a power of attorney she had granted him. (Compl., ¶ 7.) Chase refused to cash the check. (Id.) Since May 23, 2023, Chase has denied Plaintiff use of the $22,786.81 deposit. (Id. at ¶ 8.)

2. Relevant Provisions of Account Agreement

Plaintiff references the Account Agreement in his pleadings and attached a copy of the Account Agreement to his Complaint. (ECF Doc. 1-1, pp. 16-43.) The Account Agreement provides that anyone who signs a signature card, submits an account application, or uses services in connection with a Chase deposit account agrees to its terms. (Id. at 20.) Section III of the Account Agreement, governing checking and savings accounts, provides that Chase reserves the right to place a hold on deposits if it has any reason to believe a check is unauthorized, was procured by fraud, or should not have been/may not be paid for any other reason. (Id. at 23.) Section III also states: “We may refuse a deposit, or part of a deposit, at any time. We also may refuse a deposit after initially accepting it. We can reverse any amount we have added to your balance for a deposited check . . . We will not be liable to you for refusing a deposit [.]” (Id.)

With regard to the availability of deposited funds, Section IV of the Account Agreement provides that checks are generally available one or two business days after a deposit. (Id. at 32.) However, that section also states that Chase may delay availability of a check's full amount up to seven business days under certain circumstances, including when an account holder deposits checks totaling more than $5,525 in a single day. (Id.)

Finally, the Account Agreement allows either Chase or the account holder to close an account without notice and for any reason. (Id. at 36.) If Chase closes an account, it must “return the balance less any fees, claims, setoffs, or other amounts if the balance is greater than $1.” (Id.) After closing an account, Chase maintains no obligation to accept deposits. (Id.)

3. Causes of Action

Mr. Pippin asserts eight causes of actions in the Complaint. In Count I, he alleges that Chase unlawfully discriminated against him under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981 (West), 1988. (Id. at ¶¶ 9-14.)

In Count II, he alleges that Chase violated the Expedited Funds Availability Act (“EFAA”) at 12 U.S.C.A. § 4001 (West) et seq by refusing to allow him to withdraw $22,786.81 from his account within seven days of it being deposited. (Id. at ¶¶ 15-19.)

In Count III, he alleges breach of contract, arguing that Chase breached the Account Agreement when it closed his bank accounts without notice and did not write him a check for the $22,786.81 deposited on May 23, 2023. (Id. at ¶ 25.)

In Count IV, he alleges unjust enrichment based on Chase not allowing him access to the $22,786.81. (Id. at ¶¶ 26-31.)

In Count V, he alleges that Chase was negligent by failing to act as a “prudent and rational banker,” and caused him damages. (Id. at ¶¶ 31^[2]-35.)

In Count VI, he alleges that Chase converted the funds in his account by wrongfully refusing his requests to withdraw available funds. (Id. at ¶¶ 37-38.)

In Count VII, titled “Mental Anxiety,” Mr. Pippin alleges that Chase “intentionally or recklessly” caused him mental anxiety and that Chase's conduct was “so extreme or outrageous as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency.” (Id. at ¶¶ 42, 43.)

In Count VIII, he alleges that Chase violated the Uniform Commercial Code as codified at Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1303.31, 1303.52 (West). (Id. at ¶¶ 47-50.)

II. Standard of Review

Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court may dismiss a claim when a party fails to plead facts on which relief can be granted. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The plaintiff is not required to include “detailed factual allegations,” but must provide more than “an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted).

This Court “must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and accept all allegations as true.” Doe v. Miami Univ., 882 F.3d 579, 588 (6th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). However, while “we must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as true, we need not ‘accept as true a legal...