Lee v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. et al
| Jie Hyun Lee |
| JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. and Experian Information Solutions, Inc. |
| 1:2022cv01748 |
| March 29, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Pamela K Chen |
| Brian M Cogan |
| Marcia M Henry |
| Consumer Credit |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 3, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 15 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Jie Hyun Lee As to Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (Cesar, Alain) |
| Civil Case Terminated. See #15 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. (Mahkamova, Shirin) |
| Filing 14 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Jie Hyun Lee as to JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. (Cesar, Alain) |
| Filing 13 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to Order to Show Cause (Request to Adjourn Deadline) by Experian Information Solutions, Inc.. (Gilbertson, Bo) |
| Filing 12 NOTICE of Settlement As to Experian Information Solutions, Inc. by Jie Hyun Lee (Cesar, Alain) |
ORDER: Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc.'s ("Experian") #13 Motion for Extension of Time to File is granted. Experian's deadline to respond to the 3/31/2022 Show Cause Order is extended to 5/5/2022. In the alternative, by 5/5/2022, Plaintiff shall voluntarily dismiss the action against Experian pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A). Upon the dismissal of Defendant Experian, the Court will remand the action with respect to the remaining Defendant, JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. ("Chase"), to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant Chase may file a letter by 4/26/2022 showing cause why the case should not be remanded. If Chase elects to file a letter, Plaintiff shall file a response on or before 5/10/2022. This Order does not affect any other deadlines in this case. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 4/12/2022. (Mahkamova, Shirin)
|
|
Order granting #6 Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer, Move, or Otherwise Respond to the Complaint. Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. shall answer or otherwise respond to the complaint by 05/12/2022. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Marcia M. Henry on 04/05/2022. (Heery-Hyatt, Micaela)
|
|
Order granting #11 Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer re #1 Notice of Removal. Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. shall answer or otherwise respond to the complaint by 05/12/2022. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Marcia M. Henry on 04/05/2022. (Heery-Hyatt, Micaela)
|
| Filing 11 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #1 Notice of Removal, by JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A.. (Sirianni, Ryan) |
|
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: On March 29, 2022, Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. ("Experian") filed a #1 Notice of Removal of Plaintiff's lawsuit brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ("FCRA") and the New York Fair Credit Reporting Act, N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. 380 ("NY FCRA") against Experian and JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. (collectively, "Defendants"). Plaintiff's complaint alleges that, as a result of FCRA and NY FCRA violations by Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered from "a decreased credit score" and "decreased credit worthiness and capacity," as well as "emotional and mental pain due to the anxiety and stress of not being able to use and benefit from their credit." (Compl., Dkt. 1-2, 33.) Additionally, under Count Four, which alleges NY FCRA violations by Experian, Plaintiff asserts that he expended "time and money associated with obtaining credit reports and disputing [them] with the consumer reporting agencies." (Id. 93.) In 2021, the Supreme Court decided TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, and established that, even where a defendant's conduct is prohibited by statute, a plaintiff may not have standing to sue in federal court if the plaintiff has not suffered an injury in fact. 141 S. Ct. 2190, 2205 (2021) ("[A]n important difference exists between (i) a plaintiff's statutory cause of action to sue a defendant over the defendant's violation of federal law, and (ii) a plaintiff's suffering concrete harm because of the defendant's violation of federal law."). Since TransUnion, courts in this circuit have applied that principle to the types of facts alleged here, and found that plaintiffs had not suffered injuries in fact and thus did not have standing to sue in federal court. See e.g., Maddox v. Bank of New York Mellon Tr. Co., N.A., 19 F.4th 58, 65 (2d Cir. 2021) (noting that a defendant's action that "adversely affected [the plaintiffs'] credit," thus "making it difficult to obtain financing," was "incapable of giving rise to Article III standing," because the plaintiffs had "not alleged that this purported risk materialized"); Wan v. Trans Union LLC, No. 22-CV-115 (PKC) (JRC), 2022 WL 955290, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2022) ("Plaintiff's claim of emotional damages falls short because she does not plead enough facts to make it plausible that she did indeed suffer the sort of injury that would entitle her to relief. Plaintiff's perfunctory allegation of emotional distress is insufficient to plausibly allege constitutional standing." (internal citations, ellipses, and brackets omitted); Cavazzini v. MRS Assocs., No. 21-CV-5087 (ARR) (ST), 2021 WL 5770273, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2021) ("A plaintiff who has failed to assert a concrete injury supporting any of his other claims cannot clear the standing threshold by claiming wasted time; to allow otherwise would enable litigants to manufacture standing merely by inflicting harm on themselves." (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); see also McMorris v. Carlos Lopez & Associates, LLC, 995 F.3d 295, 301 (2d Cir. 2021) (holding that time and monetary expenses incurred to protect plaintiff against a "speculative threat cannot create an injury" because "plaintiffs cannot manufacture standing merely by inflicting harm on themselves." (citations omitted)).Such cases may, however, be brought in state courts, which have jurisdiction to enforce the FCRA and are not bound by the injury in fact requirement of Article III of the Constitution. See Ciccone v. Cavalry Portfolio, No. 21-CV-2428 (JS) (JMW), 2021 WL 5591725, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2021). Accordingly, on or before April 14, 2022, Defendant Experian is required to file a letter showing cause why this case should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall file a response to Defendant's letter on or before April 28, 2022. This Order does not affect any other deadlines in this case. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 3/31/2022. (Mahkamova, Shirin)
|
| Filing 10 NOTICE of Appearance by Alain Cesar on behalf of Jie Hyun Lee (aty to be noticed) (Cesar, Alain) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE of Appearance by Craig B. Sanders on behalf of Jie Hyun Lee (aty to be noticed) (Sanders, Craig) |
|
ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Pamela K. Chen and Magistrate Judge Marcia M. Henry for all further proceedings. Judge Brian M. Cogan no longer assigned to case Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our #website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such.Ordered by Chief Judge Margo K. Brodie on 3/29/2022. Motions referred to Marcia M. Henry. (Davis, Kimberly)
|
| Filing 8 Corporate Disclosure Statement by JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. identifying Corporate Parent JPMorgan Chase & Co. for JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A.. (Sirianni, Ryan) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Appearance by Ryan Sirianni on behalf of JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. (aty to be noticed) (Sirianni, Ryan) |
| Filing 6 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer , Move, or Otherwise Respond to the Complaint by Experian Information Solutions, Inc.. (Gilbertson, Bo) |
| Filing 5 This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (Davis, Kimberly) |
| Filing 4 In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent a United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to the Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. The form may also be accessed at the following link: #http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO085.pdf. You may withhold your consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent. (Davis, Kimberly) |
| Filing 3 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Experian Information Solutions, Inc. identifying Corporate Parent Experian plc., Other Affiliate Opt-Out Services LLC, Other Affiliate Central Source LLC, Other Affiliate Online Data Exchange LLC, Other Affiliate New Management Services LLC, Other Affiliate VantageScore Solutions LLC for Experian Information Solutions, Inc.. (Gilbertson, Bo) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Appearance by Bo Gilbertson on behalf of Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (notification declined or already on case) (Gilbertson, Bo) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Experian Information Solutions, Inc. from Queens County Supreme Court, case number 703593/2022. ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ANYEDC-15418960) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit) (Gilbertson, Bo) |
| This case has been opened in the Eastern District of New York. If you plan to continue representing your client(s), you must be admitted to practice before this court. You must do so by applying for Pro Hac Vice or permanent admission. To apply for Pro Hac Vice admission, you must first register for an ECF login and password. Please visit the Court's website at www.nyed.uscourts.gov/attorney-admissions for guidance. Once registered, you must electronically file a Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. You must pay the required pro hac vice fee online. (Davis, Kimberly) |
| Case Assigned to Judge Brian M. Cogan. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our #website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (Davis, Kimberly) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
