Geoffroy

Geoffroy v. Washington Mutual Bank

Good Law
484 F. Supp. 2d 1115·2007 WL 1334375·2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33489
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaMay 3, 200706 CV 1732 BEN (WMC)California3,393 words

Opinion

Opinion

Benitez, J.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND MOTION TO STAY

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs are retirees who opened a joint consumer checking account at their local branch of Defendant Washington Mutual Bank. They deposited $80,000 in the account and went on a three-month vacation. Upon returning, they discovered the account had been drained dry and overdrawn by $20,000 by someone else. The bank took the position that it was not at fault and demanded repayment of the overdraft. Plaintiffs then brought the instant action alleging a federal claim under the Electronic Fund Transfers Act (“EFTA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1693 , et seq., and state claims of negligence and breach of contract. Washington Mutual now moves to compel arbitration of the claims and to stay the action based upon an arbitration clause in its checking account “Signature Card.” Plaintiffs oppose the motion arguing that the arbitration clause is unconscionable. For the reasons stated below, the Court agrees with the Plaintiffs and denies Washington Mutual’s Motion to Compel and Motion to Stay.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Validity of the Arbitration Clause is for the Court to Determine

In its recent en banc decision…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.