The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, District Judge
Before the Court is a motion submitted by Plaintiffs John Forness, Jared Knocker, Esther Rinker, Dwayne Shaw, Kendra Horgan, Teri Moore, and Larry Agne (together, "Plaintiffs") to remand this case to state court. (Doc. 16.) Defendants Cross Country Bank and Applied Card Systems (together, "Defendants") respond in opposition. (Doc. 20.) A hearing was held in this matter on January 4, 2006. For the following reasons, the Court denies Plaintiffs' motion.
Plaintiffs are a group of consumers who allege that Defendants "committed a variety of unfair and deceptive trade practices." (Doc. 2, Pls. Compl., ¶ 8.) Defendants are affiliated Delaware corporations engaged in the business of providing credit-card services to individuals. Plaintiffs allege three Counts of wrongdoing against Defendants: the first arises out of the Illinois Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, 815ILL.COMP.STAT. 505/01 et seq. ("IFDPA"); the second is for unjust enrichment and restitution; and the third is for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. (Doc. 2, Pls. Compl., pp. 8-9.)
Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that Defendants engaged in the following improper activities:
a. Refusing to close accounts upon request by the consumer and/or falsely telling consumers that they may not close their accounts so that Cross Country can continue to charge the consumer's account for membership and other fees;
b. Falsely representing to consumers and to banks that Defendants have authorization to withdraw funds directly from the consumer's bank account, when in fact they have no such authorization;
c. Misleading consumers into believing that if they make a payment, they will not be charged late or other fees and then charging the fees anyway after the consumer agrees to the payment;
d. Failing to disclose to consumers that they will be charged a fee for paying by phone so that in cases where consumers believe they have paid off a balance by doing so, they actually are incurring a new charge; and
e. Charging a variety of fees, including late fees and overlimit fees which bear no relationship to costs and are unlawful penalties. (Doc. 2, Pls. Compl., ¶ 8.) Plaintiffs focus in particular on the conduct discussed in
(e) - Defendants' alleged practices of charging fees that "bear no relation" to costs. (Doc. 2, Pls. Compl., pp. 8-9.)*fn1
Defendants, arguing for removal, rely on statutes and cases holding that if a suit challenges the amount of certain types of bank fees, then the claims in that suit are completely preempted by federal law and removal is therefore appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. (Doc. 20, pp. 3-13.) Their argument is that because the claims in Plaintiffs' suit are, at least in part, premised on the relationship between Defendants' fees and costs, those claims are usury claims attacking fee amounts. (Id.) Plaintiffs, arguing for remand, disagree and claim that Defendants mischaracterize their complaint. In Plaintiffs' view, the claims they bring are "mainly based on allegations of deceptive trade practices of defendants which include not disclosing the existence of fees and finance charges, misleading plaintiffs in numerous respects regarding the basis for late fees as well as ...