Wechsler v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 1:15-cv-05907

Plaintiff Donald Wechsler opened a savings account decades ago; it became an HSBC "Everyday Savings Account" and is governed by HSBC's Rules for Deposit Accounts and Terms & Charges.
The Rules contain a Limitations Clause requiring written claims relating to account handling to be filed within one year of the date the problem occurred, with a series-of-events accrual rule starting at the first event.
Beginning January 31, 2014, HSBC began charging a $5 monthly maintenance fee to Wechsler's account; he disputed charges in December 2014 and May 2015 and received partial refunds but charges resumed.
Wechsler sued on July 28, 2015, alleging breach of contract and violations of New York General Business Law § 349 (NYDPA), on behalf of a putative class.
HSBC moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) arguing the one-year contractual limitations clause bars the suit; the court considered the complaint and incorporated documents and held the defense was apparent on the face of the complaint.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the one-year contractual limitations clause bars the claims	Wechsler argued accrual should be measured by each successive breach (each monthly charge), and starting the limitations period at the first charge would bar relief and allow perpetual unlawful charges; also argued waivers interrupted the series of events; contended contractual bar shouldn't apply to statutory NYDPA claim	HSBC argued the Rules (including the Limitations Clause) apply to the account, the series-of-events clause starts the one-year period at the first charge (Jan. 31, 2014), and thus suit filed July 28, 2015 is untimely; contractual limitations apply to statutory claims when the clause covers them	The court held the one-year contractual limitations clause governs accrual and began at the first charge (Jan. 31, 2014); Wechsler's suit filed July 28, 2015 was time-barred. The waiver/partial refunds did not interrupt accrual, and contractual limitations can apply to statutory NYDPA claims.

LaFaro v. N.Y. Cardiothoracic Grp., PLLC, 570 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2009) (pleading-stage rules and court may consider certain documents attached or incorporated into the complaint)
Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2002) (scope of materials district courts may consider on Rule 12(b)(6))
Staehr v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., 547 F.3d 406 (2d Cir. 2008) (statute-of-limitations defense may be resolved on Rule 12(b)(6) when it appears on the face of the complaint)
Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 134 S. Ct. 604 (2013) (parties may contractually shorten a limitations period and agree on its commencement)
Corbett v. Firstline Sec., Inc., 687 F. Supp. 2d 124 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (shortened contractual limitations periods are enforceable when reasonable)