The Jury Is Out on JPMorgan Chase: New Class Action Lawsuit Claims The Bank Rips Off D.C. Jurors
WASHINGTON, Feb. 10, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- On Tuesday, February 7, 2017, D.C. law firm, Tycko & Zavareei LLP, filed a class action lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase alleging the bank charges D.C. jurors deceptive and unconscionable fees. The case was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and is captioned Scott v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 17-cv-249.
D.C. law entitles all jurors to a $4 daily travel stipend, and, if selected to serve on a jury, a $30 daily attendance fee. Rather than receive their payment by check or cash, the lawsuit alleges D.C. jurors are forced to receive their payment on JPMorgan Chase debit cards, in violation of federal law. The lawsuit also alleges violations of state law, claiming that the debit cards are loaded with hidden inactivity and other fees for using—or not using—the cards.
The Plaintiff, William Mark Scott, brought suit on behalf of all individuals who answered calls to jury duty and were paid with JPMorgan Chase debit cards.
Anna Haac, an attorney representing Mr. Scott, commented, "Jury duty is integral to our American democracy. As alleged, it appears that Chase intentionally designed its juror debit card system so that the bank ends up with the payments instead of jurors, who are entitled to them by statute."
Because many ATMs do not dispense money in dollar increments or amounts less than $20, the lawsuit alleges that jurors with odd dollar increments—including all jurors who receive only the $4 travel allowance—are unable to obtain the full amount of their jury payments. In this way, the suit claims Chase practically ensures a "rump" balance will be left on each card—and will revert back to Chase.
"JPMorgan Chase should not be profiting off of individuals fulfilling their civic duty," said Sophia Goren, another attorney representing Mr. Scott in the lawsuit.
The Complaint includes claims against JPMorgan Chase for unjust enrichment, conversion, violation of state consumer protection statutes, and violation of the federal Electronic Fund Transfer Act.
SOURCE Tycko & Zavareei LLP
Share this article