Christopher Hintz v. JPMorgan Chase Bank

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that conclusory allegation that RESPA violations caused plaintiffs over $50,000 in damages failed to state a claim
• upholding dismissal of § 2605(e) claim because complaint did not identify actual damages arising from failure to respond to written requests
• affirming dismissal where plaintiffs failed to explain causal connection between RESPA violation and alleged actual damages
• “Generally, parties should not be allowed to amend their complaint without showing how the complaint could be amended to save the meritless claim.”
• “RESPA does not require a servicer to respond to any question that a borrower may ask—no matter how broad, vague, or far afield.”
• “When the court denies leave on the basis of futility, it means the district court has reached the legal conclusion that the amended complaint could not withstand a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) . . . .” (quotation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).