Cache Valley Bank v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Cache Valley Bank · United States District Court for the District of Utah · March 24, 2026 · No. 1:25-cv-00148-DBB-DAO

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Utah granted JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s partial motion to dismiss claims brought by Cache Valley Bank concerning an altered check. The court dismissed without prejudice the claim asserting enforcement of an obligation on an altered instrument, concluding that the cited UCC alteration provision did not create an independent cause of action and that Chase did not violate the applicable presentment warranty. The court also dismissed the common law negligence claim as preempted by the UCC and, alternatively, because Chase owed no duty of care to Cache Valley Bank.

Holdings

  1. Section 70A-3-407 defines alteration and may provide a framework for analyzing other claims, but it does not create an independent standalone cause of action for enforcement of an obligation on an altered instrument.
  2. Chase did not violate Utah Code section 70A-4-208(1)(a) because it was a holder and therefore a person entitled to enforce the subject check under the UCC, even though the check was altered or counterfeit.
  3. The UCC preempts CVB's negligence claim because the UCC provides a specific liability framework for payor banks, while negligence would impose an inconsistent reasonable-care requirement.
  4. Chase owed CVB no duty of reasonable care because CVB was a noncustomer with no customer or contractual relationship with Chase.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Utah Code section 70A-3-407 creates an independent cause of action allowing CVB to avoid enforcement of its obligation on an altered check.
  2. Whether CVB's claim that Chase was not entitled to enforce the altered check was governed by the presentment warranty in Utah Code section 70A-4-208(1)(a), and whether that claim was plausibly pleaded.
  3. Whether the UCC preempts CVB's common-law negligence claim arising from the handling and payment of the altered check.
  4. Whether, independently of UCC preemption, Chase owed CVB a duty of reasonable care despite the absence of a customer or contractual relationship.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (42)

  • Abdi v. Wray, 942 F.3d 1019, 1025 (10th Cir. 2019)(followed)
  • United States ex rel. Reed v. KeyPoint Gov’t Sols., 923 F.3d 729, 764 (10th Cir. 2019)(followed)
  • McNellis v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist., 116 F.4th 1122, 1131 (10th Cir. 2024)(followed)
  • Reznik v. inContact, Inc., 18 F.4th 1257, 1260 (10th Cir. 2021)(followed)
  • Ruiz v. McDonnell, 299 F.3d 1173, 1181 (10th Cir. 2002)(followed)
  • Greer v. Moon, 83 F.4th 1283, 1292 (10th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 2521 (2024)(followed)
  • Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007)(followed)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(followed)
  • Lane v. Simon, 495 F.3d 1182, 1186 (10th Cir. 2007)(followed)
  • Lewiston State Bank v. Greenline Equip., LLC, 2006 UT App 446, ¶ 15 n.7, 147 P.3d 951(followed)

Showing top 10 of 42.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…