快活视频

 

Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo

Summarized by:

  • Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Archives
  • Area(s) of Law: Civil Law
  • Date Filed: 12-26-2012
  • Case #: 10-16959; 10-17468; 10-17689
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Circuit Judge McKeown for the Court; Circuit Judges Thomas and W. Fletcher

Wells Fargo Bank is not entitled to demand arbitration on appeal for a customer class action suit challenging the bank鈥檚 high-to-low debit card posting scheme under California鈥檚 Unfair Competition Law as 鈥渦nfair鈥 and 鈥渇raudulent.鈥 National banking laws preempt California state law regarding the unfairness of a bank's posting scheme, but not any fraudulent misrepresentations made about it to customers.

California customers of Wells Fargo brought a class action suit against the bank alleging that its practice of high-to-low posting of debit card transactions violates California鈥檚 Unfair Competition Law (鈥淯CL鈥). High-to-low posting maximizes overdraft fees by posting customers鈥 debit card transactions for the larger amounts first; overdraft fees are applied pursuant to the number of transactions and not by the overall dollar amount of the overdraft. The district court held that Wells Fargo鈥檚 practices violated the 鈥渦nfair鈥 and 鈥渇raudulent鈥 prongs of the UCL and ordered an injunction on high-to-low posting and $203 million in restitution. Wells Fargo appealed asserting, among other claims, that the court should compel arbitration pursuant to the Wells Fargo Customer Account Agreement. The Ninth Circuit held that despite the U.S. Supreme Court鈥檚 decision in Concepcion, ordering arbitration at this point, post-appeal and coupled with Wells Fargo鈥檚 late demand for arbitration would be extremely prejudicial to plaintiffs. Further, the Court vacated the district court鈥檚 injunction and restitution order because it reasoned that a good faith limitation on a bank鈥檚 posting order for debit card transactions imposed by the UCL is preempted by federal banking laws which allow banks to choose their posting scheme. However, the Ninth Circuit held that federal laws do not preempt UCL鈥檚 prohibition on misleading or fraudulent statements regarding a posting scheme and the district court could consider on remand the issue of whether an injunction and restitution is warranted on the fraudulent basis prong. REVERSED in part, AFFIRMED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings.

Advanced Search


Back to Top