Tal v. American Express Company
ORDER granting 5 defendant's motion to substitute parties...this case shall proceed with American Express Bank, F.S.B. as defendant. Plaintiff is directed to file the referenced affidavit by 02/03/2012...see order for specifics. Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 01/24/2012. (lam)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY,
Plaintiff sued American Express Company (“AmEx”) in state court, alleging he
sustained damages as a result of defendant’s bad faith banking practices and fraudulent
conduct. His claims arise from his and his wife’s use of two credit cards he asserts were
issued by AmEx and his subsequent settlement negotiations as to balances due on those
cards. AmEx removed the action to federal court and filed a motion to substitute American
Express Bank, F.S.B. (“AmEx Bank”) as the proper party defendant. AmEx contends that
AmEx Bank “was and is the issuer and holder of the credit accounts identified in Plaintiff’s
Petition.” Doc. #5, p. 1.
Plaintiff opposes the requested substitution. He asserts that AmEx has offered no
documentation supporting its claim that AmEx Bank is the proper party defendant. He also
argues that he has had no communications or dealings with AmEx Bank, that he has dealt
exclusively with AmEx. AmEx filed a reply brief and attached a copy of an agreement
between Delta SkyMiles® Credit Cardmember and American Express Bank, FSB, which
indicates that AmEx Bank, not AmEx, issued the credit cards to plaintiff. AmEx asserts that
it is the parent company of American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc., which
is the parent company of AmEx Bank.
It appears that the credit cards involved here1 were likely issued by AmEx Bank,
though AmEx’s submissions are not necessarily conclusive as to that issue. The copy of the
agreement it relies on is unauthenticated, and there is no evidence that plaintiff received, or
was a party to, such agreement. That circumstance would arguably justify denying the
motion to substitute. However, in the circumstances existing here, the court concludes the
most appropriate course of action — based on practical as much as legal considerations —
is to permit the substitution.
Plaintiff maintains he is proceeding pro se. Although the nature of plaintiff’s
submissions suggests he has had the assistance of a lawyer in preparing his pleadings, the
court assumes at this point that plaintiff’s pro se status is accurate and notes the potential
difficulty of expecting a pro se plaintiff to pursue claims which may depend on involved
issues of agency — is the person who answers an 800 number or otherwise deals with
someone like plaintiff on behalf of “American Express” or one of its departments acting on
behalf of AmEx or AmEx Bank or some other entity in the defendant’s corporate structure?
If the plaintiff pursues his case with a particular view of those “agency” or “proper
defendant” issues that proves to be wrong, then he could lose without ever reaching the
Plaintiff’s claims are based on two credit cards, one issued to him and another which he
alleges was issued to him and his wife jointly. Defendant appears to dispute that the second
card was issued to both plaintiff and his wife. See defendant’s reply, p. 2 n.1.
substance of his claims against the proper party, presumably the card issuer. If, on the other
hand, AmEx Bank is substituted here, there is no reason to assume that complete relief could
not be afforded plaintiff if his claims are ultimately determined to have merit. The
substitution thus appears most likely to lead to a real resolution of the issues in controversy
without unnecessarily devoting the parties’ time and resources to what is likely a peripheral
battle. The court concludes the requested substitution of parties should be permitted, but
subject to revisiting that decision if it should prove to disadvantage plaintiff in the pursuit of
his underlying claims.2
As noted above, plaintiff indicates he is proceeding pro se in this lawsuit. From the
nature of the pleadings plaintiff has filed, the court concludes they were likely drafted by an
attorney rather than by plaintiff acting on his own behalf. The use of ghostwritten pleadings
raises both ethical and legal issues which require a determination of who actually prepared
the indicated pleading. See Duran v. Carris, 238 F.3d 1268, 1272-73 (10th Cir. 2001).
Plaintiff is directed to file an affidavit with the court stating either that the pleadings,
including the petition and response to the motion to substitute, were filed without the
assistance of counsel or, if they were drafted with the assistance of counsel, the name and
address of the counsel providing the assistance. No such affidavit need be filed if an entry
of appearance is filed by counsel for plaintiff in the meantime.
For the reasons stated, defendant’s motion to substitute parties [Doc. #5] is
In such event, the court would anticipate shifting the related costs to defendant.
GRANTED. This case shall proceed with American Express Bank, F.S.B. as defendant.
Plaintiff is directed to file the referenced affidavit by February 3, 2012.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 24th day of January, 2012.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.