United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ROBERT BLAKEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Anthony Houston sues Defendant Fifth Third Bank, claiming
that Defendant violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act
(EFTA) and breached their account agreement by holding
Plaintiff liable for certain alleged unauthorized
transactions from Plaintiff's account. This Court
previously dismissed without prejudice Plaintiff's first
amended complaint, but granted Plaintiff leave to replead his
claims. . Plaintiff has since filed a second amended
complaint (SAC) , and now Defendant brings a renewed
motion to dismiss . For the reasons explained below, this
Court denies Defendant's motion.
The Second Amended Complaint's Allegations
2018, Plaintiff maintained a deposit account with Defendant.
 ¶ 6. On or about June 15, 2018, an unknown third
party deposited a check in Plaintiff's account at one of
Defendant's branches. Id. ¶ 8. Plaintiff
has never visited that particular branch. Id.
claims that the check “was altered or fictitious,
” and that the endorsement signature on the check looks
nothing like his own. Id. ¶ 10. Plaintiff also
claims that Defendant did not at any time compare the
endorsement signature on the check with the signature it had
on file for Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 11.
next day, June 16, 2018, between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m.,
Plaintiff received an email from Defendant stating that his
passcode changed. Id. ¶ 12. Plaintiff promptly
called Defendant to report that he did not authorize this
passcode change and asked that Defendant lock his account.
Id. ¶ 13. Plaintiff also changed his passcode.
asserts that Defendant should have prevented all further
activity on his account at that point, but Defendant did not
do so. Id. ¶¶ 14-15. Later that same day,
an unknown third party again changed the passcode for
Plaintiff's account, twice, and then withdrew $4, 030
from Plaintiffs account, via three withdrawals at an ATM and
one electronic fund transfer through Zelle. Id.
¶ 16. Plaintiff called Defendant multiple times that day
to report the attempted fraud on his account; Defendant told
Plaintiff the situation would be “rectified.”
Id. Plaintiff asserts he did not make, and received
no benefit from, these transactions. Id. ¶ 18.
He also claims that he did not provide his passcode, debit
card, or PIN to anyone. Id. ¶ 19. Plaintiff
additionally asserts that he never replied to any text
message verification request from Defendant or any other
entity regarding the transactions at issue. Id.
Plaintiff notified Defendant of the unauthorized
transactions, and Defendant temporarily credited Plaintiff
$4, 030 and sent him a letter confirming the temporary
credits on June 20, 2018. Id. ¶¶ 23, 25.
But on July 3, 2018, Defendant sent Plaintiff two letters
reversing the credits, stating that “our research
confirms that the transaction was valid.” Id.
wrote to Plaintiff on August 1, 2018. Id. ¶ 36.
In that August 1 letter, Defendant said that after completing
its research on the parties' dispute, it connected the
transactions “to other known fraudulent activity
wherein the customer participated by giving the unauthorized
party their debit card and PIN.” Id. ¶
37. Defendant then reiterated its position denying
Plaintiff's dispute. Id. ¶ 36.
asserts two claims against Defendant: breach of contract
(Count I), and violations of the EFTA (Count II). .
survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint
must provide a “short and plain statement of the
claim” showing that the pleader merits relief,
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), so the defendant has “fair
notice” of the claim “and the grounds upon which
it rests, ” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). A complaint must also contain
“sufficient factual matter” to state a facially
plausible claim to relief-one that “allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference” that the defendant
committed the alleged misconduct. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 570). This plausibility standard “asks for more than
a sheer possibility” that a defendant acted unlawfully.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. In evaluating a
complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), this Court accepts all
well-pleaded allegations as true and draws all reasonable
inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Id. This
Court does not, however, accept a complaint's legal
conclusions as true. Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574,
581 (7th Cir. 2009).
again moves to dismiss Plaintiff's claims in their
entirety. . This Court ...