Vida Baptista vs JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
640 F.3d 1194
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Baptista, not a Chase account holder, presented a third-party check for cash at Chase for $262.48 and was charged a $6 fee for immediate cashing.
- Baptista brought a two-count class action alleging Florida § 655.85 prohibit banking fees on payees; and unjust enrichment.
- Chase moved to dismiss on grounds: § 655.85 does not apply to payees; claims are preempted by the National Bank Act (NBA); and unjust enrichment fails as a matter of law.
- District court granted dismissal on preemption grounds, holding § 655.85 preempted and Baptista’s unjust enrichment claim preempted as well.
- Appeal argues § 655.85 applies to personal checks presented in person, § 655.85 is not preempted by NBA, and unjust enrichment is not preempted.
- Court affirms dismissal, holding § 655.85 preempted by OCC regulations under NBA and Baptista’s unjust enrichment claim likewise preempted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Fla. Stat. § 655.85 apply to payees presenting checks for payment? | Baptista argues the statute covers personal check cashing by a payee. | Chase contends the statute governs bank-to-bank exchange fees, not payees. | § 655.85 applies to payee-presented checks; preemption analysis remains. |
| Is § 655.85 preempted by the NBA as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act? | Baptista contends the state law is not in irreconcilable conflict with NBA. | Chase asserts the statute is preempted as conflicting with federal authorization to charge fees. | § 655.85 is preempted under OCC regulations and conflict preemption under Dodd-Frank. |
| Is Baptista’s unjust enrichment claim preempted by the NBA? | Baptista relies on the same facts as § 655.85 claim. | Chase argues preemption applies to the unjust enrichment claim as well. | Unjust enrichment claim is preempted as it relies on the same conduct already preempted. |
| What preemption standard applies after Dodd-Frank to state consumer financial laws? | N/A | N/A | Conflict preemption governs; state laws are preempted where they significantly interfere with national banking powers. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wells Fargo Bank of Texas N.A. v. James, 321 F.3d 488 (5th Cir. 2003) (par value statute conflict with NBA allowed fees; OCC interpretation upheld)
- Barnett Bank of Marion County, N.A. v. Nelson, 517 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1996) (state laws preempted where they irreconcilably interfere with federal powers)
- Della Ratta v. Della Ratta, 927 So.2d 1055 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006) (elements of unjust enrichment and consideration analysis)
- American Safety Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Griggs, 959 So.2d 322 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007) (unjust enrichment claim elements and sufficiency under Florida law)