Case docket
Hyde-Edwards Salon & Spa v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. — S.D. Cal., No. 20cv762
Hyde-Edwards Salon & Spa v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. — S.D. Cal., No. 20cv762 — 2 documents in the archive, dated April 22, 2020 to November 23, 2020.
Case facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (1 filing); UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (1 filing) |
|---|---|
| Docket number | No. 3:20-cv-00762 — main docket · CourtListener docket 674354 |
| Filings | 2 public filings |
| Filed | 2020-04-22 – 2020-11-23 |
| Document types | complaint (1), order (1) |
| Original PDFs | 2 of 2 |
| Profiles | JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. |
Case summary
Hyde-Edwards Salon & Spa, suing individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed this action on April 22, 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, No. 20cv762 DMS(MDD), against JP Morgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. The order on this page states that the plaintiff brought five claims over the defendants' processing of Paycheck Protection Program loan applications, on behalf of a proposed California class. The defendants moved to compel arbitration under the plaintiff's Deposit Account Agreement and Chase's Online Services Agreement. On November 23, 2020 the court granted that motion and stayed the case pending arbitration, holding that questions about the scope of the arbitration clause are for the arbitrator.
Case at a glance
| Parties | Plaintiff: Hyde-Edwards Salon & Spa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. Defendants: JP Morgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. |
|---|---|
| Court and docket | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, No. 20cv762 DMS(MDD); the page stamps read 3:20-cv-00762-DMS-MDD |
| Program | Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) |
| Claims | Five claims as listed by the court: violations of California's False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 et seq.; violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, § 17200 et seq.; fraudulent concealment; breach of fiduciary duty; and negligence |
| Disposition or status | Order of November 23, 2020 granting the defendants' motion to compel arbitration and staying the case pending arbitration. The parties are to submit a joint report within 14 days of the completion of the arbitration proceedings |
| Status checked | 2026-09-23 · against DOJ press releases through 2026-09-22; court docket not yet read |
What does the complaint allege?
The text of the complaint on this page does not extract; it is a set of page stamps. The court's order describes the complaint as alleging that the defendants made "false, misleading, and deceptive representations and omissions concerning their processing of economic assistance via the [PPP]," and that although PPP guidelines stated loans should be processed on a "first come, first served" basis, the defendants prioritized larger loans and loans carrying greater exposure.
What did the court decide?
That the parties do not dispute there is a valid agreement to arbitrate and that the Online Agreement delegates questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, so the court granted the motion to compel and stayed the case pending the parties' arbitration.
Who is in the proposed class?
As quoted in the order, "All eligible persons or entities in the State of California who applied for a loan under the PPP with Defendants and whose applications were not processed by Defendants in accordance with SBA regulations and requirements or California law."
Docket
2 documents in docket-entry order; attachments follow their entry. Gaps name the entries we do not have.
No. 3:20-cv-00762
- Class action complaint — Hyde-Edwards Salon & Spa v. JPMorganEntry 1
- —Entries 2–21 are not in the archive
- Order granting motion to compel arbitration — Hyde-Edwards v. JPMorgan (S.D. Cal.)Entry 22
Court, dates and docket numbers are as recorded on the filings.