Granados v. Onpoint Cmty. Credit Union
| Decision Date | 18 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | 3:21-cv-847-SI |
| Parties | JENNA GRANADOS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ONPOINT COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
David F. Sugerman and Nadia H. Dahab, SUGARMAN LAW OFFICE, 707 SW Washington Street, Suite 600, Portland, OR 97205; Beth E Terrell, Jennifer Rust Murray, and Ryan Tack-Hooper, TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC, 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103; and Daniel A. Schlanger, SCHLANGER LAW GROUP LLP, 80 Broad Street, Suite 1301, New York, NY 10004. Of Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Kimberley Hanks McGair, FARLEIGH WADA WITT, 121 SW Morrison Street Suite 600, Portland, OR 97204; K. Issac deVyver and Karla L. Johnson, MCGUIRE WOODS LLP, Tower Two-Sixty, 260 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1800, Pittsburgh, PA 15222; and Jeffrey Paul Ehrlich, MCGUIRE WOODS LLP, 88816th Street, N.W., Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20006. Of Attorneys for Defendant.
Plaintiff Jenna Granados (Granados) brings this putative class action against Defendant OnPoint Community Credit Union (OnPoint). Granados asserts six claims in her First Amended Complaint (FAC). Granados alleges that OnPoint violated the federal Electronic Fund Transfers Act (EFTA), 15 USC § 1693 et seq., by: (1) refusing to reimburse Granados for funds that she lost due to fraudulent transactions; (2) attempting to enforce contract terms that limit Granados' consumer rights beyond what the EFTA allows; and (3) failing to notify Granados of her statutory right to access documents that OnPoint relied on to deny the dispute. Granados also alleges that OnPoint: (4) breached its contractual obligations by denying Granados' fraud dispute without investigating; (5) violated Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA), Oregon Revised Statutes § 646.608, by misrepresenting the nature of OnPoint's banking services; and (6) was unjustly enriched by its refusal to credit Granados for her losses due to fraud. Granados brings this sixth claim, labeled “restitution,” in the alternative to her fourth claim for breach of contract. Granados also describes four possible putative classes.
Before the Court are two motions. First, OnPoint moves to dismiss Granados' second, fourth, fifth, and sixth claims. Second, OnPoint moves to strike the class allegations in Granados' FAC for three of her four putative classes. For the reasons explained below, the Court grants in part and denies in part OnPoint's motion to dismiss and denies OnPoint's motion to strike.
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim may be granted only when there is no cognizable legal theory to support the claim or when the complaint lacks sufficient factual allegations to state a facially plausible claim for relief. Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010). In evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint's factual allegations, the court must accept as true all well-pleaded material facts alleged in the complaint and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 668 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2012); Daniels-Hall v. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010). To be entitled to a presumption of truth, allegations in a complaint “may not simply recite the elements of a cause of action, but must contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself effectively.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). The court must draw all reasonable inferences from the factual allegations in favor of the plaintiff. Newcal Indus. v. Ikon Off. Sol., 513 F.3d 1038, 1043 n.2 (9th Cir. 2008). The court need not, however, credit a plaintiff's legal conclusions that are couched as factual allegations. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009).
A complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations to “plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief, such that it is not unfair to require the opposing party to be subjected to the expense of discovery and continued litigation.” Starr, 652 F.3d at 1216. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)). “The plausibility standard is not akin to a probability requirement, but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Mashiri v. Epsten Grinnell & Howell, 845 F.3d 984, 988 (9th Cir. 2017) (quotation marks omitted).
Under Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff seeking to certify a class must show (1) numerosity, requiring that the class is so large that joinder of all members in not practical; (2) commonality, requiring that one or more questions of law or fact are common to the class; (3) typicality, requiring that the named plaintiffs' claims are typical of the class; and (4) adequacy of representation, requiring that the class representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interests of other class members. Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970, 980 (9th Cir. 2011). In addition to the requirements of Rule 23(a), such a plaintiff also must satisfy at least one requirement of Rule 23(b). Id. at 979-80. Rule 23(b)(3) requires “that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3). Among the pertinent factors for a court to consider are “the likely difficulties in managing a class action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3)(D).
Although a plaintiff has the burden of showing that a proposed class should be certified, “in the context of a motion to strike class allegations, in particular where such a motion is brought in advance of the close of class discovery, it is properly the defendant who must bear the burden of proving that the class is not certifiable.” Bates v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 993 F.Supp.2d 1318, 1340-41 (D. Or. 2014) (emphasis in original). A court may strike class allegations at the pleading stage but abuses its discretion if it does so prematurely. See Davidson v. O'Reilly Auto Enters., 968 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 2020) ; see also Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 935, 942 (9th Cir. 2009) ().
OnPoint is a credit union that conducts business in Oregon. Granados a resident of Oregon, was a member of OnPoint. On January 10, 2021, an unknown individual defrauded Granados into providing her OnPoint account PIN number. This individual did so by posing as an employee of OnPoint's Fraud Department and explaining that Granados' account had “flagged” charges. Upon confirming that the purported employee's phone number matched the OnPoint Fraud Department's phone number, Granados provided her PIN number. The individual then used that PIN number to steal $3,474.28 from Granados's account in several transactions.
Granados promptly noticed these unauthorized transactions that same day. Granados called OnPoint's after-hours phone line to report these transactions as fraudulent and spoke with an OnPoint customer service representative, who then locked Granados's debit card. Granados also reported this fraud to the Hillsboro Police Department but was told that her report was premature.
The next day, January 11, Granados visited OnPoint's Orenco Station branch to file OnPoint's Card Transaction Dispute and Affidavit of Forgery forms, in which Granados indicated that the disputed transactions were fraudulent and unauthorized. Granados also spoke with an OnPoint employee, who helped Granados file these forms and took a written statement from Granados about the fraudulent transactions.
Granados later called OnPoint to ask about her dispute. An OnPoint representative told Granados that OnPoint had denied Granados' claim and mailed a letter, dated January 20, detailing OnPoint's rejection. Granados had not yet received that letter, but it arrived shortly after. In the letter, OnPoint informed Granados that OnPoint denied her claim because Granados had provided her PIN to a third party, thereby, as OnPoint explained, “authorizing” the transactions and voiding OnPoint's obligation to credit Granados for the disputed amount. The letter also stated that OnPoint's Membership and Account Agreement (Account Agreement) included these policies. The letter did not mention that Granados could request all supporting documentation that OnPoint relied on to reach its decision in the dispute. Granados states that OnPoint did not investigate the circumstances of her disputed transactions. Instead, Granados asserts, OnPoint merely issued a “boilerplate” rejection of her dispute based only on the fact that she had provided her PIN number to a third party, despite being induced to do so by fraud.
On January 27, after reviewing OnPoint's rejection letter Granados returned to OnPoint's Orenco Station branch and spoke with an OnPoint employee, who...
To continue reading
Request your trial