Muhammad v. PNC Bank, N.A., 2:15-cv-16190

Plaintiff James A. Muhammad has a mortgage loan with defendant PNC Bank and was charged "speed pay" fees (e.g., $12) and document fees (e.g., $5) not listed in his note or deed of trust.
Plaintiff alleges the fees do not reflect actual cost and were not authorized by his loan agreement or statute, thus violating the West Virginia Consumer Credit & Protection Act (W. Va. Code § 46A-2-128(d)) and that assessing them led to a misrepresentation claim under § 46A-2-127.
Plaintiff filed a putative class action in state court; the case was removed to federal court under CAFA. Defendant moved to dismiss Count One (§ 46A-2-128(d)) and Count Three to the extent it relies on speed pay fees.
The central factual/legal dispute is whether speed pay fees are "incidental to the principal obligation" (the loan) for purposes of § 46A-2-128(d).
The court evaluated the complaint under the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard and considered persuasive authority interpreting analogous federal consumer-protection language.
The court denied the motion to dismiss, concluding the complaint sufficiently alleges the fees were incidental to the loan and therefore states a claim under § 46A-2-128(d).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether speed pay fees are "incidental to the principal obligation" under W. Va. Code § 46A-2-128(d)	Muhammad: fees are processing/transaction charges tied to crediting payments and thus incidental to the loan	PNC: complaint fails to describe the charge or circumstances; fees are not incidental but business costs unrelated to the loan	Court: allegations and reasonable inferences plausibly show fees accompany and relate to the loan; sufficient to allege "incidental" status
Whether the § 46A-2-127 misrepresentation claim (to extent based on speed pay fees) should be dismissed	Muhammad: assessing unauthorized fees constitutes a misrepresentation of a claim	PNC: dismissal follows if § 46A-2-128(d) claim fails	Court: because § 46A-2-128(d) claim survives, the dependent § 46A-2-127 argument cannot be dismissed on that ground

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must state a plausible claim for relief)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
Bourne v. Mapother & Mapother, P.S.C., 998 F. Supp. 2d 495 (W. Va. Consumer Credit & Protection Act construed broadly)
Quinteros v. MBI Assocs., Inc., 999 F. Supp. 2d 434 (processing/transaction fees can be "incidental" under consumer-protection statute)
Tuttle v. Equifax Check, 190 F.3d 9 (applying consumer-protection provisions to processing/transaction fees)