Howards v. Fifth Third Bank
Decision Date | 06 February 2023 |
Docket Number | 1:18-cv-869 |
Parties | TROY HOWARDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FIFTH THIRD BANK, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Fifth Third Bank's Motion to Dismiss (pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 12(b)(6)) Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint. (Doc. 49). Plaintiff has filed a memorandum in opposition (Doc. 57)[1], to which Defendant has replied (Doc 68).[2]
As an overview, the First Amended Class Action Complaint (“FAC”), filed on July 2, 2018, challenges three different account fees that Defendant Fifth Third Bank (“Fifth Third”) assesses to accountholders. (Doc 17). Plaintiff claims that this conduct: breaches his contract with Fifth Third as well as the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (First Claim for Relief); violates California's Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), codified at Ca. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. (Second Claim for Relief); and violates California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), codified at Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq. (Third Claim for Relief). The account fees at issue are out-of-network (“OON”) fees assessed on in-network ATM withdrawal transactions, multiple non-sufficient funds (“NSF”) fees assessed on the same transaction, and overdraft (“OD”) fees assessed on one-time debit card transactions.[3]
Plaintiff has since “elect[ed] not to oppose [Fifth Third's] Motion as to his CLRA claim, agreeing to its dismissal.” (Doc. 57 PAGEID 1081 n.1). Additionally, Plaintiff has agreed “not to further pursue a claim challenging [Fifth Third's] assessment of the challenged OON Fees on behalf of the proposed OON Fees classes[.]” (Stipulation Regarding Plaintiff's Agreement to Drop Allegations Pertaining to Out of Network ATM Fees from First Amended Complaint, Doc. 97 PAGEID 1738). To inform the Court's analysis, the parties have stipulated to dismissal of Plaintiff's Third Claim for Relief (in its entirety) and that portion of Plaintiff's First and Second Claims for Relief pertaining to OON fees (only). (Id. PAGEID 1739). Thus, the Court will proceed to decide Fifth Third's Motion as to the two remaining theories of liability[4]alleged in Plaintiff's First and Second Claims for Relief. (See id.).
Plaintiff Troy Howards, a California resident, maintains a Fifth Third checking account. (FAC, Doc. 17 (¶¶ 10, 13)). Fifth Third's Deposit Account Rules and Regulations (“R&R”) govern his account. (Id. (¶ 13)[6]). Fifth Third issues debit cards to its checking account customers, giving them electronic access to their account for purchases, payments, and ATM withdrawals. (Id. (¶¶ 11, 14)). As noted, this case involves debit card transactions.
Fees charged to Plaintiff's checking account. On June 19, 2017, Plaintiff took an Uber ride that cost $13.16. (Id. (¶ 39)). Fifth Third rejected payment of this transaction because Plaintiff had insufficient funds in his account and charged Plaintiff a $37 NSF fee. (Id. (¶ 40)). One week later, on June 26, 2017, this same transaction was submitted for payment again, rejected again for insufficient funds, and Plaintiff was charged another $37 NSF fee. (Id. (¶ 41)). This event was listed as a “Retry Payment” on Plaintiff's account statement. (Id. (¶ 42)). The same transaction was submitted for payment a third time. (Id. (¶ 43)). Unlike before, though, Fifth Third paid the transaction and instead charged Plaintiff a $37 OD fee. (Id.). This event, too, was listed as a “Retry Payment” on Plaintiff's account statement. (Id. (¶ 44)). All told, Fifth Third charged $111 in fees to process a single $13 payment to Uber. (Id. (¶ 45)). This pattern repeated on August 1, 2017 and August 8, 2017, when Fifth Third charged two $37 NSF fees (totaling $74) on a single $6.99 Uber ride. (Id. (¶ 48)).
Plaintiff was charged OD fees in three other instances. On June 22, 2017, Plaintiff took an Uber ride that cost $5.00; he was charged a single $37 OD fee. (Id. (¶ 94)). On July 20, 2017, Plaintiff took two Uber rides that each cost $4.99; he was charged with a $37 OD fee for each ride. (Id. (¶ 92)). On July 27, 2017, Plaintiff took two Uber rides that cost $6.99; he again was charged with a $37 OD fee for each ride. (Id. (¶ 93)).
Deposit Account R&R. Plaintiff alleges that the Deposit Account R&R allows Fifth Third to charge “at most” a single NSF fee or a single OD fee on an “item” presented for payment. (FAC, Doc. 17 (¶ 47); see id. (¶¶ 49-70)). Plaintiff also alleges that that the Deposit Account R&R expressly states that Fifth Third will not assess OD fees on “one- time” (or “everyday”) debit card purchases when a customer, like himself, does not opt-in to “Overdraft Coverage” for this specific purpose. (Id. (¶¶ 84-94)).
The following excerpts from the Deposit Account R&R (issued May 2017) are in play:
To continue reading
Request your trial