Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hall v. Rbs Citizens

December 16, 2010

HALL
v.
RBS CITIZENS



Name of Assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge Amy J. St. Eve

Sitting Judge if Other than Assigned Judge

CASE TITLE

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

The Court grants Defendant's motion to dismiss [14] without prejudice. All pending dates and deadlines are stricken.

O[ For further details see text below.] Notices mailed by Judicial staff.

STATEMENT

On September 29, 2010, Plaintiff Len Hall filed the present one-count Class Action Complaint alleging that Defendant RBS Citizens, National Association d/b/a Charter One Bank ("Charter One") violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act ("EFTA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1693, et seq. Before the Court is Charter One's motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, the Court grants Charter One's motion to dismiss without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

In his one-count Class Action Complaint, Hall alleges that Charter One is a federally chartered corporation with offices at One Citizens Plaza, Providence, Rhode Island 02903. (R. 1, Compl. ¶ 5.) In January 2010, Hall had a "Green Checking" account with Charter One that he maintained for personal, family, or household purposes that was subject to an agreement whereby Charter One would provide electronic fund transfer services. (Id. ¶ 7.) On or about January 5, 2010, Hall accessed his account online and instructed Charter One to execute an electronic funds transfer in accordance with the protocol provided by Charter One for such transfers. (Id. ¶ 8.) Hall maintains that Charter One did not execute the January 5, 2010 transfer. (Id. ¶ 9.)

Courtroom Deputy KF

Initials:

On or about June 14, 2010, Hall accessed his account online and instructed Charter One to execute an electronic funds transfer in accordance with the protocol provided by Charter One for such transfers. (Id. ¶ 10.) Again, Hall alleges that Charter One did not execute the June 14, 2010 transfer. (Id. ¶ 11.) Meanwhile, on or about June 27, 2010, and again on June 30, 2010, Charter One informed Hall that the transfer had not been executed because he had accessed his account between 3:00 p.m. and 4:15 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, and that its system did not accept electronic funds transfer instructions during that time period. (Id. ¶ 12.) According to Hall, none of the agreements, terms, or advertising materials that he received regarding his Charter One account said anything about the inability to give electronic fund transfer instructions during this time period. (Id. ¶ 13.)

LEGAL STANDARD

"A motion under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the sufficiency of the complaint to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." Hallinan v. Fraternal Order of Police of Chicago Lodge No. 7, 570 F.3d 811, 820 (7th Cir. 2009). Pursuant to Rule 8(a)(2), a complaint must include "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The short and plain statement under Rule 8(a)(2) must "give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S. Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). Under the federal notice pleading standards, a plaintiff's "factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Put differently, a "complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). "[W]hen ruling on a defendant's motion to dismiss, a judge must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007); McGowan v. Hulick, 612 F.3d ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.