Algee v. Chase Card Funding, LLC
Filing
28
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, The Court hereby GRANTS the Defendant's motion to dismiss, (Doc. 16), and hereby DISMISSES this case with prejudice. The Court DIRECTS the Clerks Office to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 10/23/2024. (jdh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DAWSON ALGEE,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 3:23-cv-03677-JPG
CHASE CARD FUNDING, LLC,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim.
(Doc. 16). The Defendant filed their motion on March 18, 2024. Being duly advised in the
premises having fully considered the issues and arguments raised, the Court GRANTS the
motion, (Doc. 16), and DISMISSES this case with prejudice.
The Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on November 14, 2023. (Doc. 3). In it, he alleges that the
Defendant denied him access to “securities owed to him despite a proper application including a
tender of payment and a security collateral.” (Id.). The Plaintiff’s complaint and response to the
Defendant’s motion for dismissal is full of legal jargon that make his claims difficult to
understand. The Plaintiff offered to provide a more definitive statement at the Court’s discretion.
(Doc. 20). The Court ordered the Plaintiff to respond with that more definitive statement.
However, over ninety days after the deadline to respond expired, the Plaintiff has still failed to
file a more definitive statement. Thus, the Court will base its ruling on the intelligible portions of
the Plaintiff’s response.
In the motion to dismiss, the Defendants point out that, for there to be a cognizable claim
here, the Plaintiff must allege a prima facie case of breach of contract or a breach of fiduciary
1
duty. In his response, the Plaintiff states that he “was denied immediately [and] therefore[,] there
was no further contact between the two parties until [he] outreached by mail. For this reason,
there were no terms and conditions or a contract that was written and agreed to at the time of
denial.” (Doc. 20). The Plaintiff admits, in his own words, that no contract existed between the
Defendant and himself.
Despite no written contract, the Plaintiff attempts to invoke the Defendant’s “indenture
agreement filed with the Security Exchange Commission.’ (Id.). He claims that by applying for
the Defendant’s services, i.e., a loan, that it created a contract and a fiduciary relationship. The
Plaintiff is mistaken.
For one, the Plaintiff attempts to use an indenture agreement as the contractual basis for
his claims; but the Plaintiff does not provide the indenture agreement. An indenture agreement
binds the parties subject to it; the Plaintiff has not presented evidence that he is either a party of a
specific indenture agreement nor has he presented evidence that he is in privity with the
Defendant. Given indenture agreements are made between institutions, the Court finds the idea
of the Defendant, a large financial institution, entering into an indenture agreement with the
Plaintiff to be highly unlikely. Regardless, absent that agreement, the Court cannot evaluate it.
Additionally, while the Plaintiff provides few factual details, in his initial complaint, the
Plaintiff states that “[o]n June 23rd, 2023, the plaintiff applied for a line of credit (open end
credit plan) with the defendant and was denied access to the securities owed to him despite a
proper application including a tender of payment a security collateral.” (Doc. 1). The Plaintiff is
not entitled to the Defendant’s services as a matter of right. The Plaintiff solicited a contract or
some kind of agreement, but the Defendant declined his application. The Defendant owes no
fiduciary duty to him nor did that denial create a contract between the Defendant and the
2
Plaintiff. Even if the Plaintiff paid a fee for the review of his application, that does not entitle
him to the Defendant’s services.
In short, there was no contract, there was no fiduciary duty, the Defendant does not have
any of the Plaintiff’s securities, nor does the Defendant owe the Plaintiff any security or interest.
Without a contract, absent any fiduciary duty, the Plaintiff has failed to establish a viable claim
for relief. While the Plaintiff claims that he was discriminated against under the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act, he does not allege a prima facie case of discrimination and he has not clarified
the details of his complaint, despite ample opportunity.
CONCLUSION
Finding that the Plaintiff has failed to plead a plausible claim for relief, and the Plaintiff
has either refuted their own claims or failed to plead sufficient additional information, the Court
hereby GRANTS the Defendant’s motion to dismiss, (Doc. 16), and hereby DISMISSES this
case with prejudice. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk’s Office to enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 23, 2024
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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.
Why Is My Information Online?