Pike v. Nick's English Hut, Inc.
937 F. Supp. 2d 956
S.D. Ind.2013Background
- Pike filed a class action under EFTA alleging Nick’s failed to post an exterior ATM fee notice during the class period (Sept. 26, 2010–Sept. 26, 2011).
- The class was certified on Jan. 14, 2013, with Pike as class representative.
- Pike used the Nick’s ATM on Sept. 27, 2010 and was charged a $1.50 surcharge.
- EFTA required prominent exterior notice at the ATM; lack of notice violated 15 U.S.C. § 1693b(d)(3)(B)(i).
- Nick’s owned the ATM; the ATM allegedly did not display the exterior fee notice during the class period.
- Congress amended the EFTA in Dec. 2012 (Public Law 112-216) removing the exterior notice requirement; retroactivity was contested, with the court applying pre-amendment law to Pike’s claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactivity of the 2012 amendments | Pike argues amendments do not retroactively bar his preexisting claim | Nick’s contends amendments retroactively alter liability | Unclear; court applies pre-amendment law, finding no retroactive application given lack of explicit direction |
| Abandonment of defenses | Nick’s abandoned several liability defenses by not defending them on summary judgment | Nick’s did not contest many defenses in briefing | Court grants summary judgment on those abandoned defenses; they cannot be asserted later |
| Liability under EFTA for exterior notice | Pike must show Nick’s is ATM operator and absence of exterior notice during class period | Nick’s disputes operator status and existence of exterior notice for the entire period | Genuine issues of material fact remain; summary judgment denied on liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Stone v. Hamilton, 308 F.3d 751 (7th Cir. 2002) (retroactivity analysis and fair notice considerations)
- Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204 (1988) (no retroactive application absent clear directive)
- Martin v. Hadix, 527 U.S. 343 (1999) (retrospective effect considerations in statutory changes)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994) (test for retroactivity of statutes and rules)
- Schacht v. Wis. Dep’t of Corrections, 175 F.3d 497 (7th Cir. 1999) (genuine issues for trial; weighing evidence issues)
- Johnson v. Cambridge Indus., Inc., 325 F.3d 892 (7th Cir. 2003) (limit on scouring record for evidence; inferences favorable to non-movant)
- Aguiar-Carrasquillo v. Agosto-Alicea, 445 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2006) (summary judgment considerations; not to rely on pleadings alone)