American Express Travel Related Services, Inc. v. Sidamon-Eristoff
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 129
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- Amex challenges New Jersey Chapter 25, which retroactively shortens the abandonment period for travelers checks from 15 to 3 years.
- Chapter 25 was enacted in 2010 to modernize unclaimed property laws and protect consumers.
- Travelers checks typically do not include purchaser names/addresses, so owners are not contacted before escheat; TCs report only serial number, amount, sale date.
- Amex argues Chapter 25 violates due process, contract, takings, and commerce clauses; district court denied preliminary injunction.
- Amex appeals; Third Circuit affirms denial, holding no likelihood of success on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive due process rational basis review | Amex argues no legitimate state interest justifying shortening the period. | New Jersey asserts legitimate interests in modernization and property protection. | Chapter 25 passes rational basis review; legitimate state interests supported. |
| Contract Clause substantial impairment | Amex contends retroactivity impairs contractual relations with TC owners. | New Jersey asserts state may adjust rights in regulated context; not a substantial impairment. | No substantial impairment; category consistent with regulated industry. |
| Takings Clause | Amex claims retroactive abandonment period interferes with investment-backed expectations. | State escheat power and regulatory framework negate expectation of private retention. | No taking; state may require turnover of abandoned property under law. |
| Dormant Commerce Clause (Pike balancing) | Chapter 25 will force burdens on interstate commerce via potential cross-state effects. | Law is non-discriminatory, local burdens justified by local benefits; costs borne within state. | Under Pike, burdens are not clearly excessive; no violation of dormant Commerce Clause. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. R.A. Gray & Co., 467 U.S. 717 (U.S. 1984) (moderate scrutiny for contract modifications in regulated contexts)
- U.S. Trust Co. of N.Y. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1977) (regarded adjustment of contractual rights under state regulation)
- Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1978) (takings analysis balancing economic impact and investment-backed expectations)
- Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. N.Y. State Liquor Auth., 476 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1986) (dormant commerce clause considerations in state regulation)
- Healy v. Beer Institute, Inc., 491 U.S. 324 (U.S. 1989) (state pricing disclosures implicated in interstate commerce regulation)