Moore

DISCUSSION

7 Plaintiffs make three claims: violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. 8 § 1693 (Count I); violation of the Uniform Commercial Code, Cal. Comm. Code § 1693 (Count 9 II); and violation of the California UCL, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, (Count III). Defendant 10 moves to dismiss the EFTA and UCL claims for failure to state a claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 12(b)(6). 12 A. The EFTA Claim 13 Plaintiffs’ EFTA claim challenges the unauthorized March 25, 2021 transfer from their 14 savings to their checking account. (Dkt. No. 17 at ¶ 43.) Under the EFTA, an unauthorized 15 electronic fund transfer is actionable only if the consumer “receives no benefit” from the 16 transaction. 15 U.S.C. § 1693a(12). Defendant argues that Plaintiffs received a benefit from the 17 savings to the checking account transfer and therefore their EFTA claim fails. The Court 18 disagrees. 19 Drawing all reasonable inferences in Plaintiffs’ favor from the complaint’s allegations, 20 Plaintiffs did not receive a benefit from the transfer. See Arizona Students' Ass'n v. Arizona Bd. of 21 Regents, 824 F.3d 858, 864 (9th Cir. 2016) (on a 12(b)(6) motion the court…