Chau Kieu Nguyen v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA
709 F.3d 1342
11th Cir.2013Background
- Chau Kieu Nguyen sued Chase Bank for breach of contract and related claims on deposits and a certificate of deposit in Vietnam.
- Chase closed its Saigon branch on April 24, 1975, before Saigon fell on April 30, 1975, hindering access to funds.
- Nguyen demanded payment on March 2, 2006, and filed suit on March 23, 2011, in the Southern District of Florida.
- The district court assumed § 632 jurisdiction, dismissed on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds based on New York limitations, and entered judgment for Chase.
- Nguyen’s claims involved various theories (breach of contract, fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, etc.), all subject to limitations defenses.
- On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit applied choice-of-law principles to determine which statute of limitations governed and the accrual rule for the contract claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What law governs the statute of limitations? | Nguyen argues New York law should apply. | Chase argues Florida law controls under choice-of-law rules. | New York law applies; six-year limitations govern accrual analysis. |
| When did the contract claim accrue? | Accrual began March 2, 2006 (demand). | Accrual began March 2, 2006 under demand rule. | Accrual began April 24, 1975, when the Saigon branch closed, making a demand futile. |
| Is a demand required where a foreign branch closes due to war? | Demand is possible via home office; no futility. | Demand would be futile due to branch closure. | Under New York law, a demand is not required when a foreign branch closes and is futile. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sokoloff v. National City Bank of New York, 164 N.E. 745 (N.Y. 1928) (demand futile when foreign branch ceases to function)
- Tillman v. Guaranty Trust Co., 171 N.E. 61 (N.Y. 1930) (accrual starts when the bank breaches where no demand is required)
- Corp. Venzolana de Fomento v. Vintero Sales, 629 F.2d 786 (2d Cir. 1980) (federal choice-of-law using Restatement approach)
- Morewitz v. West of England Ship Owners Mut. Protection and Indem. Ass’n (Luxembourg), 62 F.3d 1356 (11th Cir. 1995) (Restatement-based conflict of laws guidance)
- Berman v. Blount Parrish & Co., Inc., 525 F.3d 1057 (11th Cir. 2008) (de novo review of statute-of-limitations rulings)