Grimmer v. Citibank
James Andrew Grimmer, Secured Party Creditor, Sui Juris, In Propria Persona v. Citibank, N.A.
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-02758
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 19
In Grimmer v. Citibank, N.A., Judge Tostrud dismissed with prejudice all claims brought by pro se plaintiff James Andrew Grimmer against Citibank, finding that none of his contract or federal statutory theories were legally plausible, and declined to impose sanctions despite Grimmer having cited numerous nonexistent cases in his court brief.
Pro se consumers who attempt 'accord and satisfaction' strategies to settle credit card debts by sending partial-payment checks; individuals seeking to sue original creditors under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (which covers debt collectors, not original creditors); litigants using AI tools to generate legal research and citations without verification; and anyone asserting claims under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act or 26 U.S.C. § 6050P, neither of which allows private lawsuits.
What happened
In Grimmer v. Citibank, N.A. (Case No. 25-cv-2758), pro se plaintiff James Andrew Grimmer sued Citibank claiming that when he sent Citibank a $500 check to settle an $18,598 credit card debt and Citibank cashed it without returning it, Citibank legally agreed to wipe out the full debt — a concept known as 'accord and satisfaction.' He also claimed Citibank violated five federal laws: the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and a tax reporting statute. Grimmer sought $3.5 million in damages plus other relief.
The court rejected every claim. On the contract claim, Grimmer failed to show that the debt amount was actually disputed or uncertain — a required element for an accord and satisfaction — since the $18,598 balance was clearly defined by his credit card account. His credit reporting claims depended on that same failed contract theory. His debt collection claim failed because Citibank is a creditor, not a debt collector, and the federal debt collection law only covers debt collectors. His Truth in Lending Act claim cited a law about credit balances that had nothing to do with his allegation that Citibank failed to hand over documents. Finally, neither the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act nor the tax reporting statute he cited gives private individuals the right to sue in court.
Judge Tostrud dismissed the entire case with prejudice — meaning Grimmer cannot refile the same claims — because Grimmer never asked to amend his complaint, never identified what he would add to fix the problems, and the court found that amendment would be futile given how poorly matched the legal theories were to the facts. The court also addressed a serious problem: Grimmer's opposition brief contained citations to multiple cases that do not exist, apparently generated by an artificial intelligence drafting tool he used without verifying the citations. Judge Tostrud chose not to initiate formal sanctions proceedings, noting that Grimmer offered a plausible explanation and apology, that the episode itself already damaged his credibility before the court, and that he has another pending case in the same district where courts and opposing parties will now scrutinize his filings closely.
The detailed version
- Grimmer v. Citibank, N.A., No. 25-cv-2758 (ECT/DLM)
- Eric C. Tostrud
- November 7, 2025
Background and Procedural Posture
Pro se plaintiff James Andrew Grimmer originally filed suit in Carver County, Minnesota state district court. Citibank, N.A. removed the case to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331) and diversity jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)). Citibank then moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Alleged Facts
Grimmer held a credit card account with Citibank governed by a Card Agreement. The account carried a balance of $18,598. In early 2024, Grimmer sent Citibank a $500 check, offering it as 'full and final settlement' of the debt. Citibank did not return or reject the check. Grimmer argued this created a binding accord and satisfaction — i.e., that Citibank agreed to accept $500 as complete payment and discharge the $18,598 debt. Nevertheless, Citibank continued to report the account to credit bureaus (TransUnion, Experian, Equifax) as charged-off with a balance of $18,598 and referred the account to a collection agency (Phillips and Cohen). The Card Agreement contained a provision explicitly prohibiting restrictive endorsements on checks and reserving Citibank's right to accept payment without waiving its other rights.
Claims Asserted and Rulings
1. UCC § 3-311 Breach of Contract (Accord and Satisfaction): Dismissed with prejudice. Two independent problems: (a) Grimmer failed to specify which state's version of UCC § 3-311 he relied upon (Minnesota's Minn. Stat. § 336.3-311 or South Dakota's S.D. Codified Laws § 57A-3-311, the latter being the choice-of-law state under the Card Agreement), and the states treat the doctrine differently. (b) More fundamentally, Grimmer failed to allege facts showing the debt was 'unliquidated' (uncertain in amount) or subject to a 'bona fide dispute' — required elements under both states' versions of the statute. The $18,598 amount was clearly fixed by the account terms and Grimmer's own charges, and the complaint identified no genuine dispute with Citibank over the amount owed.
2. UCC § 9-210 (Request for Accounting): Dismissed with prejudice. This provision applies only to debts secured by collateral. Grimmer's credit card account was unsecured, and neither the complaint nor the Card Agreement indicated any collateral. The provision simply did not apply.
3. Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681s-2 and 1681i: Dismissed with prejudice. Grimmer's theory was that Citibank wrongly reported the debt after accepting his settlement payment. Because the court rejected the underlying accord-and-satisfaction theory, this derivative claim also failed.
4. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e and 1692g: Dismissed with prejudice. The FDCPA applies only to 'debt collectors' — entities whose principal purpose is debt collection or who regularly collect debts owed to others. Citibank is a creditor collecting its own debt. Grimmer alleged no facts showing Citibank qualifies as a debt collector under the statutory definition.
5. Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation Z, 15 U.S.C. § 1666d and 12 C.F.R. § 1026.9: Dismissed with prejudice. The statute Grimmer cited concerns a creditor's obligations when a credit balance (overpayment) exists in a consumer account. The regulation concerns creditor disclosure requirements. Neither has any connection to Grimmer's factual allegation that Citibank failed to provide an original signed contract or accounting ledger.
6. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), 12 C.F.R. § 1016: Dismissed with prejudice. No private right of action exists under this provision. The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection expressly noted this when it amended Regulation P in 2014, and the Eighth Circuit has held the same.
7. Tax Reporting Statute, 26 U.S.C. § 6050P: Dismissed with prejudice. No private right of action exists under this provision either.
Dismissal With Prejudice
The court dismissed the entire complaint with prejudice (barring refiling), noting that Grimmer never requested leave to amend, never identified what allegations or claims might cure the deficiencies, and the court found that the poor fit between his factual allegations and legal theories made any amendment futile.
AI-Generated Fake Citations / Rule 11 Issue
Citibank's reply brief identified that Grimmer's opposition brief contained numerous citations to nonexistent cases, apparently produced by an AI drafting tool Grimmer used without verifying the citations. Grimmer filed a 'Notice of Clarification and Correction of Authorities' acknowledging most errors but failing to address four specific nonexistent citations that the court independently confirmed did not exist: Hernandez v. Midland Credit Mgmt., 79 F.4th 771 (8th Cir. 2023); Hernandez v. Midwest Transit Servs., Inc., 479 F. Supp. 3d 644 (N.D. Ill. 2020); Leventhal v. MandMarblestone Grp., 639 F. App'x 183 (3d Cir. 2016); and Peters v. U.S. Bank N.A., 2020 WL 604884 (D. Minn.). The court also noted Grimmer improperly used the 'clarification' filing as an unpermitted sur-reply. Despite these problems, the court declined to order Grimmer to show cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(3), citing three reasons: (1) Grimmer offered a plausible explanation (cognitive-processing disorders and inadvertent failure to verify AI-generated research) and a seemingly sincere apology; (2) the episode already damaged Grimmer's credibility and placed future courts and adversaries on notice to scrutinize his filings carefully, particularly in his other pending District of Minnesota case, Grimmer v. Gurstel L. Firm, P.C., No. 25-cv-1024; and (3) further sanctions proceedings would impose costs on Citibank and the court disproportionate to any additional deterrence benefit.
Note on ADA Claim
The court refused to consider an Americans with Disabilities Act claim that Grimmer raised only in his opposition brief, because it was not alleged in the complaint and a complaint cannot be amended through a brief.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 19-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.