Capital
One Motion For Summary
Judgment In Overdraft Fees
Case Denied In SDNY
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
June 25 –
Three years after Capital One
Bank was sued for its
overdraft fees on debit card
transactions for which there
were sufficient funds
available in the customers'
accounts, on June 25 the
bank's motion for summary
judgment was denied by U.S.
District Court for the
Southern District of New York
Judge Lorna G.
Schofield.
Judge Schofield after her
ruling joked that it felt like
the case began in last
century. She gave the lawyers
for named plaintiff Tawanna M.
Roberts two weeks to file a
letter presaging their motion
for class
certification.
The
case has already seen one
appeal to the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals, which
partially reversed
Judge Schofield's granting
of Capital One's motion to
dismiss Roberts' causes of
action for breach of contract
and violation of New York
General Business Law §
349.
The
case has attracted interest as
an example, consumer advocates
say, of predatory practice,
citing a Capital One account
agreement which states that an
overdraft occurs when it
“elects to pay” a transaction
that exceeds a customer’s
available balance.
The
advocates say that by charging
overdraft fees on transactions
that the bank elected to pay
when the available balance was
sufficient, but that later
settled against negative
funds, Capital One led
consumers to believe it would
do one thing while doing the
opposite, inflicting
significant financial hardship
- that is, overdraft fees - on
affected customers in the
process.
In the
run-up to the June 25 oral
arguments, Judge Schofield
informed the parties that she
would only grant argument to
lawyers graduating in 2014 or
more recently. Capital One's
law firm Morrison Foerster
proposed a 2013 graduate,
Tiffani B. Figueroa. Judge
Schofield approved it, and the
argument took place with
Sophia Goren Gold representing
Tawanna Roberts. Now she seeks
class certification. The case
is Roberts v. Capital One
Financial Corporation,
16-cv-4841 (Schofield).
After her June 25 ruling,
Judge Schofield said that
there might be material even
in the transcript of the oral
argument, which took place in
open court, which should be
redacted. This follows an
entirely sealed criminal
sentencing Judge Schofield
held on June 17, without
disclosing even the name of
the case or defendant, much
less the reason(s) for
sealing.
In this case, both sides
quickly said no, there was
nothing to redact. Like the
sentencing, it is a matter of
public interest. Inner City
Press, which has not been told
what sentencing was moved out
of its view on June 17 (and
which was the only media in
Judge Schofield's courtroom
for the Capital One oral
arguments on June 25) will
stay on these cases. More on
Patreon, here.
***
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
UN Office, past & future?: S-303, UN, NY 10017 USA
For now UNder
Guterres: UN Delegates
Entrance Gate
and mail: Dag H.
Center
Box 20047, NY NY 10017 USA
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2018 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com for
|
,
