Rutherford v. Central Bank of Kansas City
3:24-cv-05299
W.D. Wash.Jun 24, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Samuel C. Rutherford III, after release from Pierce County Jail, received his confiscated funds via a prepaid debit card issued by Central Bank of Kansas City (CBKC), rather than in cash as he allegedly requested.
- Rutherford claims he had no meaningful choice but to accept the prepaid card, which imposed certain fees after a grace period.
- The prepaid card was already validated and accompanied by a Cardholder Agreement and Fee Schedule, which disclosed how it would work and what fees would be assessed.
- Rutherford filed a putative class action alleging violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), the Washington Consumer Protection Act (WCPA), unjust enrichment, and conversion under state law.
- CBKC moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of all claims. The court granted summary judgment for CBKC on one EFTA claim but denied it on the other EFTA and all state law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether card was "requested" or "unsolicited" under EFTA (1693i) | Rutherford asserts no real choice and the card was given unsolicited and validated. | CBKC claims plaintiff requested the card by signing a receipt authorizing it. | Denied summary judgment; factual dispute to be resolved by jury. |
| Whether card falls under "service fee" prohibition (EFTA 1693l-1) | Card was not sufficiently reloadable, so service fee prohibition should apply. | Card was reloadable (even once) and not a gift card, so fees are permissible. | Granted summary judgment; service fees permissible. |
| Whether WCPA was violated by unfair or deceptive conduct | Distribution of unsolicited cards with fees was unfair/deceptive and caused harm. | Cards not provided unfairly; even if so, not unfair/deceptive under WCPA. | Denied summary judgment; factual dispute remains. |
| Unjust Enrichment and Conversion | Fees were unlawful, CBKC had no authority or consent to charge them. | Fees were disclosed and authorized; no unjust enrichment or conversion. | Denied summary judgment; factual dispute remains. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (sets forth summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (addresses what constitutes a genuine issue of material fact for summary judgment)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (discusses burden shifting and evidence required to defeat summary judgment)
- Block v. City of Los Angeles, 253 F.3d 410 (clarifies summary judgment burdens in the Ninth Circuit)