AZAR v. CHASE BANK, N.A., 2:23-cv-00470-SDW-JSA

Background

Plaintiffs Edward and Cynthia Azar are New Jersey residents who held Chase checking/savings accounts as Chase "private clients."
In April 2022 an unknown person ("John Doe") accessed the Azars' savings account and withdrew substantial funds; plaintiffs allege Chase knew or should have known because of unusual activity but failed to notify or prevent withdrawals and withheld information.
Some stolen funds were returned to Chase by Goldman Sachs and then credited back to the Azars; Tastyworks reimbursed some but allegedly refused to reimburse a substantial remaining amount.
Plaintiffs sued in New Jersey state court (Dec. 7, 2022). Tastyworks removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds (Jan. 26, 2023); Chase consented. Defendants moved to dismiss; plaintiffs cross-moved to remand, to amend, to vacate a pro hac vice order, and for arbitration.
The Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, found no personal jurisdiction over Tastyworks, denied leave to amend as futile, denied remand, and declined to vacate the pro hac vice admission or order arbitration.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Personal jurisdiction over Tastyworks	Tastyworks was involved with Doe's investments and partly refunded funds; jurisdiction appropriate	Tastyworks did not target New Jersey or purposely avail itself to plaintiffs' forum	Court: No personal jurisdiction; plaintiffs failed to show Tastyworks was "at home" or targeted NJ
Sufficiency of tort/negligence claims against Chase	Chase knew or should have known of fraud, breached duties by failing to prevent/notify/provide information	Plaintiffs plead only conclusory allegations without identifying a source of duty; accounts governed by contract	Court: Complaint fails Rule 8/Iqbal pleading standard; allegations insufficient to infer liability
Applicability of economic loss doctrine and arbitration clause	Plaintiffs assert tort claims based on bank's conduct as private clients	Chase points to Account Agreement governing deposit accounts, barring tort recovery for purely economic losses and requiring arbitration	Court: Economic loss doctrine applies; tort claims seeking economic recovery precluded by contract; arbitration clause compels arbitration but merits dismissed so arbitration not ordered here
Remand, amendment, and pro hac vice challenge	Plaintiffs seek remand (amount in controversy now allegedly below $75,000), leave to amend name of Chase, vacatur of pro hac vice	Defendants show amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 at removal (punitive damages included); proposed amendment would not cure pleading defects; no basis to vacate pro hac vice	Court: Diversity jurisdiction satisfied; remand denied; leave to amend denied as futile; pro hac vice order not vacated

Key Cases Cited

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (court need not accept legal conclusions as true)
O'Connor v. Sandy Lane Hotel Co., 496 F.3d 312 (3d Cir.) (specific/general personal jurisdiction framework)
Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017 (purposeful availment/targeting requirement)
Sun Chem. Corp. v. Fike Corp., 235 A.3d 145 (N.J. 2020) (economic loss doctrine bars tort recovery for contractual economic losses)
Wolens v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, 155 A.3d 1 (App. Div. 2017) (no general duty for banks to monitor depositor accounts absent contract)
Huber v. Taylor, 532 F.3d 237 (3d Cir.) (punitive damages may satisfy amount-in-controversy requirement)
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Stevens & Ricci Inc., 835 F.3d 388 (3d Cir.) (requirements and proof burden for diversity jurisdiction)
St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (amount-in-controversy legal certainty standard)