## Facts

- Brian Roundtree attended a conference in Barcelona and visited a strip club with colleagues.
- He later discovered three charges on his Chase credit card totaling about $42,000, which he claimed were unauthorized and supported by forged signatures.
- Roundtree asserted he became dizzy, passed out, and never removed his Chase card from his pocket.
- He spoke with local police and conference security but did not file a formal police report.
- Roundtree’s account to Chase changed: he initially reported an overcharge by a restaurant, later alleging he was drugged and his card was used without authorization.
- Chase investigated by contacting the club and Barcelona police and by comparing the disputed signatures to Roundtree’s signature on file; police reported no filed complaint and the club provided no information.
- Chase concluded the charges were authorized and declined to reverse them; Roundtree stopped paying, leading to adverse credit and collection activity.

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment was appropriate on the FCBA/TILA claim given disputes over whether the charges were unauthorized and whether Chase conducted a reasonable investigation and response.
2. Whether Washington negligence claims could proceed alongside FCBA duties, and if so, in what limited form.
3. Whether Roundtree produced evidence of actionable fraud or negligent misrepresentation based on Chase’s statements about its investigation and conclusions.
4. Whether the credit-card issuer–cardholder relationship created a fiduciary duty under Washington law.
5. Whether Chase’s handling of the dispute could constitute an unfair or deceptive act under the Washington Consumer Protection Act (WCPA), beyond a single contested billing decision.

## Decision

- Roundtree’s motion for summary judgment was denied.
- Chase’s motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part.
- The FCBA claim was not resolved on summary judgment because material factual disputes remained about authorization and the reasonableness of Chase’s investigation and conclusions.
- A negligence theory survived only to the extent it did not impose duties inconsistent with the FCBA framework.
- Summary judgment was granted to Chase on fraud and negligent misrepresentation for lack of evidence of specific, materially false factual statements, intent (for fraud), and justifiable reliance.
- Summary judgment was granted to Chase on breach of fiduciary duty because no fiduciary relationship existed in an ordinary credit-card context.
- The WCPA claim was limited; the court rejected the view that an incorrect dispute outcome alone is unfair or deceptive, but allowed a narrowed theory to proceed based on alleged practices that could affect the public interest if proven.

## Legal Principles

- Under the FCBA/TILA, a card issuer receiving a timely billing-error notice must acknowledge the dispute, conduct a reasonable investigation, and either correct the account or provide a written explanation of why the statement is considered accurate.
- “Reasonable investigation” is assessed under the circumstances and can present a jury question when credibility and competing inferences affect whether the issuer’s steps and conclusions were reasonable.
- State-law negligence may coexist with FCBA duties when it does not conflict with the federal scheme; courts may narrow negligence claims to avoid imposing inconsistent obligations.
- Fraud requires proof of a materially false representation of existing fact, knowledge of falsity, intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance, and damages; evaluative conclusions about disputed evidence generally do not satisfy these elements without identifiable false factual assertions.
- Negligent misrepresentation requires objectively false, material factual statements and justifiable reliance; disagreements with a defendant’s investigative judgment are insufficient.
- Under Washington law, a standard creditor–debtor (credit-card issuer–cardholder) relationship does not create fiduciary duties absent special circumstances showing a relationship of trust and advisory responsibility.
- A WCPA claim requires an unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce affecting the public interest that causes injury to business or property and causation; a single contested billing decision is typically insufficient without evidence of broader misleading practices.

## Conclusion

The court denied the cardholder’s request for judgment and partially granted the issuer’s request, holding that disputes about authorization and the reasonableness of the issuer’s FCBA investigation required trial, while dismissing fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and fiduciary-duty claims and narrowing negligence and WCPA theories to those consistent with the federal dispute-resolution framework and supported by evidence of potentially deceptive practices.


Roundtree v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 2014 WL 794800 (W.D. Wash. 2014)