Farrell

Farrell v. Bank of America, N.A.

Good Law
224 F. Supp. 3d 1016·2016 WL 8223653·2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188415
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaDecember 19, 2016Case No.: 3:16-cv-00492-L-WVGCalifornia2,688 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Honlorenz, J.

*1018 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc. 8]

Pending before the Court is Defendant Bank of America, N.A.’s (“Bank”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Joanne Farrell's (“Plaintiff’) Complaint [Doc. 1], The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted and without oral argument. See Civ. L. R. 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES the Bank’s Motion to Dismiss.

I. Background

This case is a putative class action focused on the Bank’s practice of levying $35 fees (“Extended Charges”) against deposit account holders for failing to rectify an overdrawn deposit account within five days. Under the terms of the Deposit Agreement [Doc. 8-3] the Bank charges a $35 fee (the “Initial Charge”) anytime a deposit account holder writes a check against insufficient funds. The Bank has discretion as to whether to honor an overdrawn check by advancing funds to the payee sufficient to cover the note, however the Bank levies the Initial Charge whether it advances the fees or not. In the event the Bank does advance the funds, the deposit account holder is obligated under the Deposit Agreement to pay back the Bank’s advance and any fees incurred. Failure to do so within…

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.