Plaintiffs filed a certified consumer class action against defendant bank

Posted by Constance Sanchez on April 26th, 2021

Procedural Posture

Plaintiffs filed a certified consumer class action against defendant bank, alleging, inter alia, unfair competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. The bank moved for reconsideration of a prior order finding that plaintiffs' claims pertaining to the allegedly unfair re-sequencing of consumer transactions by the bank were not preempted by the National Bank Act and regulations set forth by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

Overview

Commercial litigation attorneys Orange County CA represent plaintiffs and defendants in civil lawsuits. They manage all phases of the litigation from the investigation, pleadings, pre-trial, trial, settlement, and appeal processes. The reconsideration motion was based on recent case law holding that a claim targeting certain underwriting and tax services brought under the unfair prong of California's unfair competition law was preempted. The instant claims did not challenge whether a particular bank overdraft fee was too high, nor did they ask the court to decide an appropriate fee. Rather, the unfair competition claim targeted whether the bank's manipulation of consumer transactions behind the scenes to maximize the occurrence of overdraft fees during the posting process was a breach of the bank's duty to act in good faith. That practice had nothing to do with whether the bank had the right to establish overdraft fees or whether individual fees were reasonably related to actual underlying costs. Thus, the instant claims were not preempted in light of recent case law.

Outcome

The motion for reconsideration was denied.

Overview

Online university student failed to state claims against a company and the university that it operated because there was no contract as alleged by the student. Further, the student lacked standing to pursue claims under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, 17500 and Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 because she did not allege facts to show that she relied on any alleged misrepresentations or suffered any injury-in-fact caused by defendants' conduct. As to negligent misrepresentation, the conclusory allegations regarding general misrepresentations did not meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).

Outcome

Motion to dismiss granted.