Hopkins v. Green Dot Corporation
5:16-cv-00365
| W.D. Tex. | Aug 24, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Margaret Hopkins (83) purchased and loaded MoneyPak EFT cards sold by Green Dot at Wal‑Mart after a fraudster impersonated her grandson; she lost $14,083.52 when the caller used the card serial numbers to withdraw funds.
- Hopkins sued Green Dot and several retail sellers (Wal‑Mart, Walgreens, Dollar Tree, Family Dollar, CVS) in Texas state court asserting DTPA and negligent misrepresentation claims and sought class certification; defendants removed based on diversity.
- Hopkins alleged misleading packaging (use of third‑party logos), failure to disclose bank affiliation/FDIC status, absence of fraud warnings, and reliance on Cardholder Agreement to deny reimbursement.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim; Hopkins moved to amend and filed a summary‑judgment motion on an affirmative defense.
- The Court dismissed Walgreens, Dollar Tree, Family Dollar, and CVS for lack of Article III standing (no causal nexus), granted dismissal of the DTPA and negligent misrepresentation claims without prejudice, denied leave to amend, and denied the summary‑judgment motion as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of non‑Wal‑Mart retailers | Hopkins argued she could represent class and invoke theories (typicality, juridical link) to sue all retailers involved in marketing/sale | Retailers argued Hopkins lacked standing because she did not purchase cards from them; no causal connection to her injury | Court: Hopkins lacks Article III standing against retailers she did not buy from; Walgreens, Dollar Tree, Family Dollar, CVS dismissed without prejudice |
| Whether Hopkins is a "consumer" under the DTPA | Hopkins contended the EFT card transaction implicated goods/services and fits within consumer protection | Defendants argued purchase was merely conversion of money (intangible), so not a good or service under DTPA (Riverside line) | Court: Hopkins is not a DTPA consumer because transaction was essentially money in another form; DTPA claim dismissed |
| Whether defendants' acts were the "producing cause" of Hopkins' damages under DTPA | Hopkins argued inadequate disclosures and fraud protections were substantial factors that led to her loss | Defendants argued the immediate cause was a third‑party criminal act breaking causal chain | Held: Even assuming deceptive acts, they merely furnished conditions for harm and were not the producing cause; DTPA claim fails |
| Negligent misrepresentation — actionable statements and reliance | Hopkins claimed affirmative misrepresentations (card nature, third‑party affiliations) and omissions caused her reliance and loss | Defendants argued (1) omissions cannot support §552 negligent misrep; (2) Hopkins did not plead direct reliance causing her loss (loss caused by third‑party fraud) | Court: Negligent‑misrepresentation claims fail — Texas §552 applies to professional/affirmative misstatements to known parties for known purposes; Hopkins did not plead direct reliance or actionable professional misstatements; claim dismissed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Article III standing requirements)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards and inference drawing)
- Riverside Nat'l Bank v. Lewis, 603 S.W.2d 169 (Tex. 1980) (money/loans not "goods" under DTPA)
- Metro Allied Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Lin, 304 S.W.3d 830 (Tex. 2009) (DTPA causation: producing cause standard)
- McCamish, Martin, Brown & Loeffler v. F.E. Appling Interests, 991 S.W.2d 787 (Tex. 1999) (negligent misrepresentation adoption of Restatement §552)