Klussman
Cross-Country Bank v. Klussman
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM
The issue raised in this appeal is whether Section 521 of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980, 12 U.S.C. § 1831d(a), completely preempts state law claims for breach of contract and fraud arising from appellant’s credit card policies. This case was originally set for argument on February 11, 2003. That argument date was vacated pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Beneficial Nat’l. Bank v. Anderson, — U.S. —, 123 S.Ct. 2058 , 156 L.Ed.2d 1 (2003). After the decision was handed down, we invited supplemental briefing to address the impact of that case on our decision. Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, we find it appropriate to remand the case to the district court for further proceedings.
The district court based its decision that Klussman’s claims were not completely preempted by Section 521 — and that federal question jurisdiction therefore did not exist to support their removal — upon the opinion of the Eleventh Circuit which the Supreme Court reversed in Anderson . That case involved a related statute, 12 U.S.C. § 86 , governing usury claims against federally chartered banks.