Nails v. Mastercard Disputes
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER:IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants motion to dismiss [Doc. # 14 ] is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other pending motions are denied as moot. A separate order of dismissal will be entered. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 4/14/15. (JAB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
Case No. 4:15-CV-126-CEJ
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on defendant’s motion to dismiss the
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(1), or for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Plaintiff has not responded, and the time allowed for doing so has expired.
Plaintiff Angela Nails brings this action against defendant MasterCard
Disputes to recover damages arising from an alleged improper charge to her credit
According to the complaint, plaintiff used her MasterCard credit card to
purchase a one-year warranty from an automobile dealership for an engine for her
Plaintiff later discovered that the dealership had actually charged her for a
obtain a refund.
Plaintiff contacted defendant to dispute the charge and to
However, defendant refused to permit plaintiff to file a formal
Plaintiff seeks to recover the amount charged to her credit card by the
Defendant states that “MasterCard Disputes” is a non-existent entity and that defendant’s correct
name is MasterCard International Incorporated.
Defendant contends that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because
the complaint does not raise a federal question or meet the requirements for
diversity jurisdiction. In the complaint, plaintiff asserts “United States federal law
credit reporting” as the basis for the action. [Doc. # 1 at ¶1].
contemporaneously-filed civil cover sheet identifies claims based on two federal
statutes: the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., and 15
U.S.C. § 1643, which limits a cardholder’s liability for unauthorized use of a credit
[Doc. # 1-2].
The complaint thus establishes subject matter jurisdiction
based on federal question. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
The purpose of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint.
allegations of a complaint are assumed true and construed in favor of the plaintiff,
“even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is improbable.” Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007) (citing Swierkiewicz v.
Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 508 n.1 (2002)); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
327 (1989) (“Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance . . . dismissals
based on a
judge’s disbelief of a complaint’s factual allegations”); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S.
232, 236 (1974) (a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it appears “that a
recovery is very remote and unlikely”). The issue is not whether the plaintiff will
ultimately prevail, but whether the plaintiff is entitled to present evidence in
support of his claim. Id. A viable complaint must include “enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. at 570; see
also id. at 563 (“no set of facts” language in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45–46
(1957), “has earned its retirement.”). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise
a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 555.
The complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for a
violation of either the FCRA or 15 U.S.C. § 1643.
At base the FCRA provides
consumers who discover inaccurate information on their credit reports with the
right to have those errors corrected; it also limits who can access a consumer’s
credit report. In this case, plaintiff makes no allegations about the contents of her
credit report or that defendant unlawfully accessed her report or that defendant’s
conduct negatively affected her report.
Rather, plaintiff’s sole complaint is that
defendant would not allow her to file a dispute of a charge on her credit card. As
such, the complaint does not state a plausible claim against defendant for violating
Section 1643 of Title 15 of the United States Code limits a cardholder’s
liability for unauthorized use of her credit card to a maximum of $50 per
transaction. The statute governs the relationship between a cardholder and a card
issuer. The defendant does not issue credit cards; it merely processes payments
between merchants and card issuers, i.e., banks and other financial institutions.
[Doc. # 15-1].
Assuming for the sake of argument that the fee charged to
plaintiff’s credit card was unauthorized, as defined by the statute, the responsibility
to limit plaintiff’s liability for that unauthorized purchase rests with the card issuer,
not defendant. Therefore, the complaint does not state a plausible claim against
defendant for violating 15 U.S.C. § 1643.
For the reasons discussed above,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss [Doc. #14] is
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other pending motions are denied as
A separate order of dismissal will be entered.
CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 14th day of April, 2015.
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?