Lazarre v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40604
| S.D. Fla. | 2011Background
- WaMu account opened in 2007 using Lazarre's identity; Lazarre alleges identity theft and disputes ownership of the WaMu account.
- Chase acquired WaMu and reported alleged fraud to Early Warning; Early Warning reported to Wachovia, which placed a financial hold on Lazarre's Wachovia account in Oct 2009.
- Lazarre contacted Chase and Early Warning in Oct 2009 to dispute the WaMu account and its fraud allegations; Lazarre repeatedly asserted the WaMu account did not belong to him.
- In 2009-2010, Early Warning informed Lazarre that its report was correct; Lazarre sought explanations of reinvestigation procedures in May 2010, and Lazarre's Regions Bank account was closed in June 2010 based on the Early Warning report.
- Lazarre filed suit Sept 9, 2010; amended complaint (Jan 2011) alleges violations of the FCRA by Early Warning (Counts I-II) and Chase (Count III); both defendants moved to dismiss respective counts.
- The court granted Chase’s motion to dismiss Count III under FIRREA exhaustion and Early Warning’s motion to dismiss Counts I-II under Rule 12(b)(6); Lazarre may amend by Apr 22, 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FIRREA exhaustion bars Count III against Chase | Lazarre argues Count III arises from Chase’s conduct, not WaMu’s acts | Chase contends the claim relates to WaMu’s act and is barred absent FDIC exhaustion | Count III barred for lack of FIRREA administrative exhaustion |
| Whether FIRREA exhaustion applies to Lazarre’s FCRA claim against Chase | Lazarre maintains exhaustion requirement does not bar his Chase claim | Chase argues all claims related to WaMu’s acts are subject to FIRREA exhaustion | Subject-matter jurisdiction lacking; FIRREA exhaustion applied to Chase claim |
| Whether Lazarre states a claim against Early Warning under 1681e(b) | Lazarre alleges Early Warning failed to follow reasonable procedures for accuracy | Early Warning argues Lazarre failed to plead how procedures were unreasonable | Count I dismissed for failure to plead reasonable procedures under 1681e(b) |
| Whether Lazarre states a claim against Early Warning under 1681i(a) | Lazarre alleges inaccurate report and notice; demands reinvestigation | Early Warning conducted multiple reinvestigations; no plausible unreasonable conduct pleaded | Count II dismissed for failure to plead failure to reinvestigate plausibly |
| Whether to grant leave to amend | Granted to file amended complaint by April 22, 2011 |
Key Cases Cited
- Stamm v. Paul, 121 F.3d 635 (11th Cir. 1997) (administrative exhaustion under FIRREA regarded as broad, deference to RTC/FDIC interpretations)
- Gomez v. Fed. Dep. Ins. Corp., 2011 WL 114066 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (district court noted FIRREA exhaustion applies to post-receivership claims; relies on FDIC interpretation (WL since unpublished))
- Am. First Fed., Inc. v. Lake Forest Park, Inc., 198 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 1999) (broad interpretation of FIRREA exhaustion for successor entities)
- Damiano v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 104 F.3d 328 (11th Cir. 1997) (exhaustion applies to claims arising from acts of failed institutions)
- Ishler v. Internal Revenue, 237 Fed.Appx. 394 (11th Cir. 2007) (articulates facial vs factual jurisdiction attacks; burden on plaintiff)
- Enwonwu v. Trans Union, LLC, 164 Fed.Appx. 914 (11th Cir. 2006) (elements of 1681e(b) claim and reliance on furnished information)
- Brooks v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 116 F.3d 1364 (11th Cir. 1997) (consideration of documents attached to motion to dismiss when central to claim)