Pfeffer v. Three Star Venture, Inc.
5:11-cv-00966
| W.D. Tex. | Jan 31, 2012Background
- Pfeffer withdrew cash from a Three Star Mart ATM in San Antonio, Texas, incurring a $2.25 surcharge.
- Plaintiff alleges the ATM lacked an additional notice near the machine about the surcharge, beyond an on-screen notice.
- Plaintiff claims the lack of extra notice violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA), which requires both on-machine and on-screen notices about fees.
- Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, costs, and attorney's fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1693m, not actual damages.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); the court denied the motion, stating the complaint is plausible and meets notice requirements; class-certification issues await separate briefing.
- The court will address class certification under Rule 23 in connection with Plaintiff's pending motion for class certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the complaint state a plausible EFTA claim? | Pfeffer alleges lack of on-machine notice violated §1693b. | Defendant contends no EFTA violation shown to date. | Yes; complaint plausibly states an EFTA claim. |
| Should the 12(b)(6) dismissal be granted based on affirmative defenses? | Affirmative defenses cannot be decided on the pleadings. | Affirmative defenses may foreclose claim but require more than pleadings. | No dismissal on affirmative defenses at this stage. |
| Can class action allegations survive at this stage under Rule 23? | Class is properly pleaded and notice pleading sufficient. | Certification issues require detailed Rule 23 analysis. | Not decided at this stage; defer to motion for class certification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard; notice-pleading requires plausibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (clarifies plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Anderson v. HUD, 554 F.3d 525 (5th Cir. 2008) (notice pleading and modest pleadings framework in class context)
- Castano v. American Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996) (rigorous Rule 23 prerequisites; class certification procedures)
- Gen. Tel. Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1982) (precedent for class action certification analysis)
- Kansa Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Cong. Mortgage Corp. of Tex., 20 F.3d 1362 (5th Cir. 1994) (affirmative defense evaluation on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion)