Đăng ngày | Thể loại: | Lần tải: 0 | Lần xem: 0 | Page: 35 | FileSize: 0.16 M | File type: PDF
of x

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. When you join a village bank you have to put in many hours of hard work. You also have to contribute to the cost of the books that teach you how to read and how to operate your village bank. Village bank members expect one another to be trustworthy, cooperative and open to new ideas. Village bank women do not blindly follow the old ways passed down by their mothers and grandmothers. They look honestly at the traditions and practices around them, and they are ready to change those traditions that are holding them back and adopt modern.... Giống các giáo án bài giảng khác được bạn đọc giới thiệu hoặc do sưu tầm lại và giới thiệu lại cho các bạn với mục đích tham khảo , chúng tôi không thu tiền từ thành viên ,nếu phát hiện tài liệu phi phạm bản quyền hoặc vi phạm pháp luật xin thông báo cho website ,Ngoài tài liệu này, bạn có thể tải Tải tài liệu luận văn,bài tập phục vụ nghiên cứu Một số tài liệu tải về mất font không xem được, nguyên nhân máy tính bạn không hỗ trợ font củ, bạn download các font .vntime củ về cài sẽ xem được.

Nội dung

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VERONICA GUTIERREZ; ERIN WALKER; WILLIAM SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. No. 10-16959 D.C. No. 3:07-cv-05923- WHA WELLS FARGO BANK,NA, Defendant-Appellant. VERONICA GUTIERREZ; ERIN WALKER; WILLIAM SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. No. 10-17468 D.C. No. 3:07-cv-05923- WHA WELLS FARGO BANK,NA, Defendant-Appellant. 2 GUTIERREZ V.WELLS FARGO VERONICA GUTIERREZ; ERIN WALKER, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and WILLIAM SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, No. 10-17689 D.C. No. 3:07-cv-05923- WHA OPINION v. WELLS FARGO BANK,NA, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted May 15, 2012—San Francisco, California Filed December 26, 2012 Before: Sidney R. Thomas, M. Margaret McKeown, and William A. Fletcher, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge McKeown GUTIERREZ V.WELLS FARGO 3 SUMMARY* Banking Law The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s issuance of a permanent injunction requiring Wells Fargo Bank to cease its practice of charging overdraft fees based on its posting in high-to-low order for all debit-card transactions, and $203 million restitution order to a certified class of bank customers. The district court held that the bank’s actions were both “unfair” and “fraudulent” under California’s Unfair Competition Law. As a threshold matter, the panel held that given the circumstances of this case, the district court’s judgment should not be vacated on the basis of the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S.Ct.1740(2011), and denied the bank’s post-judgment, post-appeal request that this dispute be arbitrated under a permissive arbitration clause contained in a contract between the parties. The panel also held that the Bank’s decision to post payments to checking accounts in a particular order is a federally authorized pricingdecision. The panel further held that the National Bank Act preempts the application of the * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. 4 GUTIERREZ V.WELLS FARGO unfair business practices prong of California’s Unfair Competition Law to dictate a national bank’s order of posting. The panel also held that both the imposition of affirmative disclosure requirements and liability based on failure to disclose are preempted. The panel held that the National Bank Act does not preempt the claim for affirmative misrepresentations under the fraudulent prong of the Unfair Competition Law. The panel vacated the injunction because each of its terms dictated relief relating to the posting order, which was preempted. The panel also vacated the restitution order. COUNSEL Jordan Elias, Richard M. Heimann, Roger N. Heller, Michael W. Sobol (argued), and Alison M. Stocking, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, San Francisco, California; Jae K. Kim and Richard D. McCune, McCune & Wright, LLP, Redlands, California, for Plaintiffs-Appellees. Robert A. Long, Jr. (argued), Mark William Mosier, Keith A. Noreika, and Stuart C. Stock, Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, D.C.; David M. Jolley and Sonya D. Winner, Covington & Burling, LLP, SanFrancisco, California; Emily Johnson Henn, Covington & Burling LLP, Redwood Shores, California for Defendant-Appellant. Julia B. Strickland, Lisa M. Simonetti, and David W. Moon, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Amici Curiae American Bankers Association and California Bankers Association. GUTIERREZ V.WELLS FARGO 5 Nina F. Simon, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae Center for Responsible Lending, Consumer Federation of America, California Reinvestment Coalition, and Law Foundation of Silicon Valley. OPINION McKEOWN, Circuit Judge: Bank fees, like taxes, are ubiquitous. And, like taxes, bank fees are unlikely to go away any time soon. The question we consider here is the extent to which overdraft fees imposed by a national bank are subject to state regulation. At issue is a bookkeepingdevice, known as “high-to-low” posting, which has the potential to multiply overdraft fees, turning a single overdraft into many such overdrafts. The revenue from overdraft fees is massive. Between 2005 and 2007, Wells Fargo Bank (“Wells Fargo”) assessed over $1.4 billion in overdraft fees. Disturbed by the number of overdrafts caused by small, everyday debit-card purchases, Veronica Gutierrez and Erin Walker (collectively “Gutierrez”) sued Wells Fargo under California state law for engaging in unfair business practices by imposing overdraft fees based on the high-to-low posting order and for engaging in fraudulent business practices by misleading clients as to the actual posting order used by the bank. The district court found that “the bank’s dominant, indeed sole, motive” for choosing high-to-low posting “was to maximize the number of overdrafts and squeeze as much as ... - 737136