Crockrom v. Bank of America, N.A., 20-4197-cv

Plaintiff Du’Bois Crockrom sued Bank of America for breach of contract alleging the bank improperly charged overdraft fees by classifying his Starbucks debit transactions as “recurring” when they were not.
The suit was brought on behalf of a putative class; the Bank moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
The Deposit Agreement contained a "Reporting Problems" provision and a separate "Electronic Banking Services" provision, each imposing a 60-day notice requirement for errors appearing on account statements.
The account statements plainly showed the Starbucks transactions labeled as "recurring" and the resulting overdraft fees.
The District Court dismissed the complaint based on the 60-day reporting requirement; the Second Circuit affirmed on the alternative ground that the Electronic Banking Services 60-day notice barred the claim.
Crockrom argued overdraft fees are not "transfers" and thus outside the Electronic Banking Services notice; the court rejected that distinction and noted Crockrom waived any argument that noncompliance would not cause forfeiture.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Deposit Agreement's notice requirement bars Crockrom's claim	Crockrom contends the notice provision at issue does not apply to fees/overdrafts or he timely reported the problem	Bank says the Electronic Banking Services section requires notice within 60 days for statement errors/transfers including debit-card transactions; Crockrom did not notify	Held: The 60-day notice in Electronic Banking Services applies to statement errors related to electronic transfers; failure to notify bars the claim
Whether overdraft fees are "transfers" for purposes of the notice provision	Overdraft fees are "fees," not transfers, so the transfer-focused notice provision does not apply	Bank: the provision covers errors or problems reflected on statements arising from electronic transfers (including debit-card transactions); overdraft fees tied to those transfers are covered	Held: Court rejects the fine distinction; the provision covers problems related to electronic transfers reflected on the statement, so it applies

Austin v. Town of Farmington, 826 F.3d 622 (2d Cir. 2016) (Rule 12(b)(6) de novo review and pleading standard context)
Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc., 992 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2021) (en banc) (conclusory allegations not entitled to the assumption of truth; plausibility standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: complaints must contain sufficient factual matter to be plausible)
McCall v. Pataki, 232 F.3d 321 (2d Cir. 2000) (appellate courts may affirm on any ground supported by the record)
Catalano v. Marine Midland Bank, 756 N.Y.S.2d 770 (2d Dep’t 2003) (enforcing bank account agreement notice requirement to bar recovery)