Pincus v. Speedpay, Inc.
9:15-cv-80164
S.D. Fla.Jun 27, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Caryn Pincus sued Speedpay, Inc. under Florida Statute §560.204, alleging Speedpay acted as an unlicensed money transmitter when facilitating her FPL bill payments by phone.
- Speedpay provides pay-by-phone bill payment technology to payees like Florida Power & Light (FPL); customers give credit card information to Speedpay’s system to pay bills and pay a convenience fee.
- The payment flow: Speedpay validates the transaction, sends authorization request to FPL’s merchant acquiring bank, the issuer places a hold, Speedpay notifies FPL the payment was made, and the merchant bank collects funds from the customer’s bank.
- Separately, Speedpay caused prefunding transfers from an affiliate (Western Union, a licensed money transmitter) into FPL’s accounts as a service; Western Union is licensed in Florida.
- Speedpay moved for summary judgment arguing it is not a “money transmitter” under Fla. Stat. §560.103(23) because it did not “receive” customer funds for the purpose of transmitting them; the court granted summary judgment for Speedpay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Speedpay is a "money transmitter" under Fla. Stat. §560.103(23) | Pincus: bill-payment services that facilitate transfers are per se money transmission even if they do not possess funds | Speedpay: statute requires actually "receiving" currency/payment instruments for purpose of transmitting; Speedpay never took possession of customer funds | Court: Not a money transmitter — statute requires receipt plus transmission; Speedpay did not receive funds and thus no license required |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden and standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard regarding genuine disputes)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (nonmovant must produce affirmative evidence)
- Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (resolving doubts against movant on summary judgment)
- Walker v. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573 (11th Cir.) ("scintilla" standard insufficient)
- Edison v. Douberly, 604 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir.) (statutory interpretation principles)
- Mike Smith Pontiac, GMC, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of N. Am., Inc., 32 F.3d 528 (11th Cir.) (plain-meaning rule of statutory construction)