52 F.4th 340
7th Cir.2022Background
- Alliant Credit Union is an Illinois-chartered, internet-only credit union serving customers nationwide; Alicia Page (New Jersey) sued on behalf of a putative class.
- Dispute over whether Alliant’s Account Agreement (Nov. 2013) permits assessing NSF fees based on the ledger balance (posted items only) or the available balance (holds and pending authorizations considered).
- Page alleges Alliant charged a $25 NSF fee on Jan. 4, 2017 for a $6,000 item despite a sufficient ledger balance, and charged multiple NSF fees for the same item on Jan. 12, 2017.
- District court granted Alliant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion, concluding the Agreement permits use of the available-balance method and allows multiple fees when a payee re‑presents an item.
- The Seventh Circuit considered CAFA jurisdiction (home-state exception) and, concluding abstention was not required, affirmed dismissal on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Agreement requires using the ledger balance to assess NSF fees | Page: “account balance” means ledger balance; Alliant promised not to charge if ledger sufficed | Alliant: contract refers to "available funds" and permits available-balance method | Court: Contract read as a whole links "available funds" to fee provisions; available-balance method allowed |
| Whether Agreement forbids charging multiple NSF fees when the same transaction is presented more than once | Page: fee is for each member payment order, so one fee per member transaction | Alliant: fee applies to each presented item (e.g., each ACH debit attempt) | Court: "Item" includes presented debits; Agreement permits charging a fee each time a payee attempts a debit |
| CAFA home-state exception / subject-matter jurisdiction | Page: alleged nationwide class; CAFA invoked | Alliant: argued possible home-state exception might require abstention | Court: choice-of-law and customer residency data show exception not triggered; federal diversity CAFA jurisdiction exists |
Key Cases Cited
- Helbachs Café LLC v. City of Madison, 46 F.4th 525 (7th Cir. 2022) (CAFA jurisdiction considerations on appeal)
- Myrick v. WellPoint, Inc., 764 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2014) (distinguishing abstention from subject-matter jurisdiction; residency vs citizenship analysis)
- Tims v. LGE Cmty. Credit Union, 935 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2019) (contract ambiguity over use of "available" balance; distinguished)
- Sproull v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 184 N.E.3d 203 (Ill. 2021) (use plain, ordinary meaning for undefined contract terms)
- Sanders v. Ill. Union Ins. Co., 157 N.E.3d 463 (Ill. 2019) (construe contract as a whole)
- Corbett v. County of Lake, 104 N.E.3d 389 (Ill. 2017) (words grouped in a list receive related meaning)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard governing Rule 12(b)(6) motions)
- Lease Mgmt. Equip. Corp. v. DFO P'ship, 910 N.E.2d 709 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009) (context can render different words synonymous)