Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03814/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03814-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KIN WAH KUNG,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITIBANK, N. A.,

Defendant. /

No. C 16-03814 WHA

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO DISMISS

INTRODUCTION

In this TILA action, which plaintiff is prosecuting pro se, defendant moves to dismiss. 

For the reasons stated herein, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

STATEMENT

In 2001, plaintiff opened a credit card with defendant Citibank N.A. (“Citi”) (FAC ¶ 8). 

Sometime prior to 2009, plaintiff consented to receiving electronic statements from Citi. As a

result, Citi sends plaintiff an electronic notification each month in lieu of a hard-copy statement. 

The electronic notification includes a link to Citi’s website, where plaintiff can access his

monthly statements electronically (id. ¶ 10). 

In May of 2015, Citi notified plaintiff via his monthly statement that his APR would

increase to 28.99 percent (id. ¶ 19). Plaintiff did not learn of the impending increase until June

of 2016. Plaintiff now argues that Citi did not meet its obligations under the Truth in Lending

Act (TILA) because it provided the notice in his monthly statement and not in “a separate

written notice” (FAC ¶ 19). 

Case 3:16-cv-03814-WHA Document 38 Filed 10/03/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

In his second amended complaint, plaintiff concedes that “[a] further review of periodic

statements between May 27, 2015 to May 26, 2016 revealed that none of Plaintiff’s outstanding

balance is subject to the Penalty APR” (SAC ¶ 20). At the hearing, plaintiff also conceded that

he has not ever been charged the penalty APR.

This order follows full briefing and oral argument.

ANALYSIS

This order concludes that plaintiff does not have standing to pursue this claim. To

establish standing, a plaintiff must show that he or she suffered an injury that is “concrete and

particularized” and “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Spokeo, Inc. v.

Robins, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1548 (2016). In Spokeo, the Supreme Court emphasized

that “Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation.” 

Id. at 1550. 

Here, plaintiff concedes that he has not been charged the penalty APR. Rather, he seeks

statutory damages for a hypothetical injury. This order concludes that plaintiff, who at the

hearing confessed to having brought 20 to 30 other lawsuits, has not established an injury that is

concrete and particularized. Therefore, he lacks standing to assert his claim.

Given the fact pattern here, which was explored at the hearing, amendment would be

futile. Therefore, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED without leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s next step, if he chooses to pursue this case, will be to appeal to our court of

appeals.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2016. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:16-cv-03814-WHA Document 38 Filed 10/03/16 Page 2 of 2