United States District Court Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Case: 1:04-cv-07682 Document #: 75 Filed: 12/19/06 Page 1 of 24 PageID #:<pageID> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION THOMAS BURNS and MARK LARSEN, ) individually and on behalf of all others similarly ) situated, ) ) Case No. 04 C 7682 Plaintiffs, ) v. ) Judge Virginia M. Kendall ) FIRST AMERICAN BANK, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Thomas Burns and Mark Larsen (“Plaintiffs”) bring this action against First American Bank (“Defendant” or “First American”) alleging violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (“EFTA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1693 et seq., and Regulation E of 12 C.F.R. 205 et seq. EFTA requires an Automatic Teller Machine (“ATM”) operator to provide notice to consumers when a fee is being imposed and the amount of any such fee. An ATM operator must provide such notice on the machine itself and on the display screen before the consumer is irrevocably committed to completing the transaction. Defendant is an ATM operator, Plaintiffs are consumers that used two of Defendant’s ATMs. Plaintiffs allege that the ATMs did not contain the required notice. Plaintiffs move to certify a class of consumers seeking statutory damages for Defendant’s alleged non-compliance with EFTA. Because Plaintiffs have met their burden under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court certifies a class consisting of all persons nationally who, from November 28, 2003 to December 1, 2004 (“the Class Period”): (1) were charged a “transaction fee” for the use of ATMs (Nos. S1A5260 and S1A5261) located in the Chicago Hilton and Towers at 720 South Michigan Avenue in Chicago, Illinois; (2) in an amount different from the “transaction fee” Case: 1:04-cv-07682 Document #: 75 Filed: 12/19/06 Page 2 of 24 PageID #:<pageID> disclosed on the fee notice posted on the outside of those ATMs. Background On August 16, 2004, Plaintiff Larsen withdrew money from ATM number S1A5261 located in the lobby of the Chicago Hilton and Towers Hotel. (Compl. ¶ 22.) On November 23, 2004, Plaintiff Burns withdrew money from ATM number S1A5260 also located in the lobby of the Chicago Hilton and Towers Hotel. (Compl. ¶ 16.) First American owned and operated ATMs S1A5260 and S1A5261. (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 23.) Located on each machine was a notice that provided: Fee Notice The owner of the terminal, First American Bank, charges a fee to U.S. cardholders of $2.00 for withdrawing cash if the transaction is performed using a card that was not issued by First American Bank. This charge is in addition to any fees that may be assessed by your financial institution. This additional charge will be added to the transaction amount and deducted from your account. (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 24.) Prior to completing their transactions, Plaintiffs were prompted on the screen with the notice that: THE AMOUNT CHARGED TO YOUR ACCOUNT WILL INCLUDE A FEE OF $2.50 IN ADDITION TO THE REQUESTED AMOUNT. THIS IS IN ADDITION TO ANY FEE CHARGED BY YOUR FINANCIAL INSTITUTION. DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE? YES > NO > (Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, Ex. 2 Case: 1:04-cv-07682 Document #: 75 Filed: 12/19/06 Page 3 of 24 PageID #:<pageID> 2.) Plaintiffs were charged $2.50 for withdrawing money from ATMs S1A5260 and S1A5261. (Compl. ¶¶ 20-21, 26.) Other consumers who used ATMs S1A5260 and S1A5261 during the Class Period also were charged $2.50. (Compl. ¶ 31.) The Electronic Funds Transfer Act Congress passed EFTA as an amendment to the Consumer Credit Protection Act (“CCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.1 See Pub.L. No. 95-630, 92 Stat. 3641, 3728 (1978). EFTA’s purpose is to protect individual consumer rights by providing a “basic framework establishing the rights, liabilities, and responsibilities of participants in electronic fund transfer systems.” 15 U.S.C. § 1693(b). Plaintiffs assert their claims under § 1693b(d)(3), which prohibits an ATM operator from imposing a fee on consumers without first providing notice: (3) Fee disclosures at automated teller machine (A) In general The regulations prescribed under paragraph (1) shall require any automated teller machine operator who imposes a fee on any consumer for providing host transfer services to such consumer to provide notice in accordance with subparagraph (B) to the consumer (at the time the service is provided) of– (i) the fact that a fee is imposed by such operator for providing the service; and (ii) the amount of any such fee. 1 The CCPA houses other consumer credit protection statutes as well, including the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1667e; the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681t; and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692o. See Bass v. Stolper, Koritzinsky, Brewster & Neider, S.C., 111 F.3d 1322, 1328 n. 9 (7th Cir. 1997). Given the common purpose underlying each statute and the often similar language, courts find case law interpreting one act under the CCPA umbrella as persuasive in interpreting the other acts. See Johnson v. W. Suburban Bank, 225 F.3d 366, 379 (3d Cir. 2000) (finding identical class action language in TILA and EFTA to have same meaning because “we do not believe that Congress would have different intended meanings for identical statutory language contained in similar statutes”). 3 Case: 1:04-cv-07682 Document #: 75 Filed: 12/19/06 Page 4 of 24 PageID #:<pageID> (B) Notice requirements (i) On the machine The notice required under clause (i) of subparagraph (A) with respect to any fee described in such subparagraph shall be posted in a prominent and conspicuous location on or at the automated teller machine at which the electronic fund transfer is initiated by the consumer. (ii) On the screen The notice required under clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A) with respect to any fee described in such subparagraph shall appear on the screen of the automated teller machine, or on a paper notice issued from such machine, after the transaction is initiated and before the consumer is irrevocably committed to completing the transaction, except that during the period beginning on November 12, 1999, and ending on December 31, 2004, this clause shall not apply to any automated teller machine that lacks the technical capability to disclose the notice on the screen or to issue a paper notice after the transaction is initiated and before the consumer is irrevocably committed to completing the transaction. (C) Prohibition on fees not properly disclosed and explicitly assumed by consumer No fee may be imposed by any automated teller machine operator in connection with any electronic fund transfer initiated by a consumer for which a notice is required under subparagraph (A), unless– (i) the consumer receives such notice in accordance with subparagraph (B); and (ii) the consumer elects to continue in the manner necessary to effect the transaction after receiving such notice. 15 U.S.C. § 1693b(d)(3). For purposes of this action, Regulation E, which implements EFTA, contains notice requirements that are substantively the same as the notice requirements in § 1693b(d)(3). See 12 C.F.R. § 205.16(b), (c), (e); 66 Fed. Reg. 13409, 13410 (“Regulation E”). Standard of Review This Court must conduct “a rigorous analysis” to determine whether the requirements for certification in Rule 23 are met. See General Telephone Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161 (1982); Davis v. Hutchins, 321 F.3d 641, 649 (7th Cir. 2003). In conducting this rigorous analysis, the Court 4 Case: 1:04-cv-07682 Document #: 75 Filed: 12/19/06 Page 5 of 24 PageID #:<pageID> “make[s] whatever factual and legal inquiries are necessary under Rule 23” even if they involve “a preliminary inquiry into the merits.” Szabo v. Bridgeport Machines, Inc., 249 F.3d 672, 676 (7th Cir. 2001); see Falcon, 457 U.S. at 160 (“[S]ometimes it may be necessary for the court to probe beyond the pleadings before coming to rest on the certification question”). While this preliminary inquiry into the merits allows the Court to understand the elements of the parties’ claims and defenses and the nature of the evidence that must be presented to adjudicate them, the Court will not assess the ultimate merits of those claims. See Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 469 (1978) (class certification considerations are “enmeshed in the factual and legal issues comprising the plaintiff’s cause of action”); Humphrey v. International Paper, 2003 WL 22111093, *3 (N.D. Ill. 2003) (describing the “preliminary inquiry into the merits” as focused on “not the substantive strength or weakness of the plaintiffs’ claims but rather whether the path that will need to be taken to decide the merits renders the case suitable for class treatment”). DISCUSSION Plaintiffs claim that Defendant is strictly liable for statutory damages under EFTA because Defendant posted a fee notice on its ATM machines that contradicted the on screen fee notice and did not represent the actual fee that class members were charged. Plaintiffs seek to pursue their claim on behalf of all persons who, from November 28, 2003 to December 1, 2004, were charged a “transaction fee” for the use of ATMs S1A5260 and S1A5261 in an amount different from the “transaction fee” disclosed on the fee notice posted on the outside of those ATMs. Plaintiffs may pursue their claim on behalf of the proposed class only if they can establish that: “(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties 5 Case: 1:04-cv-07682 Document #: 75 Filed: 12/19/06 Page 6 of 24 PageID #:<pageID> are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed.