Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...Chase charged a $6.00 fee to provide cash immediately. In response, Baptista filed this class action on January 28, 2010, against Chase seeking damages on two counts. First, she alleged that Chase’s charging of a check-cashing service fee violated Fla. Stat. § 655.85. Second, she brought a claim for unjust enrichment. Chase filed its Motion to Dismiss on March 1, 2010, moving to dismiss on three primary grounds. First, Chase alleged that Fla. Stat. § 655.85 did not apply to Baptista because that statute only regulates fees charged between banks.1 Second, Chase alleged that both of Baptista’s claims are preempted by the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C....

...On June 4, 2010, the district court granted Chase’s motion, dismissing both of Baptista’s claims as preempted by the NBA, and Baptista appealed. Baptista alleges that reversal of the district court is proper because: (1) a clear reading of Fla. Stat. § 655.85 shows that it is applicable to a fee charged on a personal check presented by the payee in person; (2) Fla. Stat. § 655.85 is not preempted by the NBA; and (3) Baptista’s unjust enrichment claim under Florida law is not preempted by the NBA....

...o. Hill v. White, 321 F.3d 1334, 1335 (11th Cir. 2003). III. The Florida statute at issue specifically prohibits a bank from “settl[ing] any check drawn on it otherwise than at par.” Fla. Stat. § 655.85. The district court concluded that § 655.85 was preempted by the NBA, specifically citing two provisions....

...ks for 6 payment would clearly and irreconcilably conflict with the OCC’s allowance of the charging of such fees. Id. at 495. We adopt the reasoning of the Fifth Circuit and hold that Fla. Stat. § 655.85 is preempted by the OCC’s regulations promulgated pursuant to the NBA. Congress clearly intended that the OCC be empowered to regulate banking and banking-related activities....

...a significant objective of the NBA and regulations promulgated thereunder, Williamson is inapposite to this case. 7 that because Baptista’s unjust enrichment claim relies on identical facts as her claim under Fla. Stat. § 655.85, it too is preempted.3 For the reasons discussed above, we affirm the judgment of dismissal. AFFIRMED. 3 We would also conclude that Baptista’s unjust enrichment claim fails as a matter of law because Baptista cannot prove each element of the claim....

...12, at 145:1-24. Settlement of checks.... [A]n institution may not settle any check drawn on it otherwise than at par. The provisions of this section do not apply with respect to the settlement of a check sent to such institution as a special collection item. § 655.85, Fla....

...Alarcón, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.  Case: 13-10458 Date Filed: 05/30/2014 Page: 2 of 7 PER CURIAM: Under Florida law, a financial institution “may not settle any check drawn on it otherwise than at par.” Fla. Stat. § 655.85....

...1 In Baptista v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 640 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2011), we held that regulations promulgated by the Office of Comptroller of the Currency (the “OCC”) pursuant to the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. § 21 et seq., preempted Florida Statute § 655.85 with respect to national banks. Id. at 1198. Here, we consider whether federal law preempts § 655.85 with respect to out-of-state state banks.2 We readily conclude that it does and therefore affirm. 1 Florida Statute § 655.85 provides, in full, Whenever any check is forwarded or presented to an institution for payment, except when presented by the payee in person, the paying institution or remitting institution may pay or remit the same, at...

...Pereira and De Freitas brought this lawsuit as a class-action on August 7, 2012. Their complaint raised four counts. Counts I and II alleged that Regions settled a check presented by Pereira and De Freitas, respectively, at less than par, in violation of Florida Statute § 655.85....

...The complaint sought compensatory damages, or, in the alternative, an order disgorging the money alleged to be wrongfully withheld from the plaintiffs. Regions moved to dismiss the complaint. With respect to Counts I and II, Regions argued that § 655.85 does not apply to in-person check-cashing transactions, is preempted by federal law, would violate the Dormant Commerce Clause if applied against Regions, and does not provide a private right of action. As to Counts III and IV, Regions c...

...led to state a claim for relief. 3  Case: 13-10458 Date Filed: 05/30/2014 Page: 4 of 7 The District Court dismissed the complaint, concluding that federal law preempts § 655.85 and, because the unjust enrichment claims were premised on the same facts, also preempted those claims. Pereira and De Freitas now appeal. II. 12 U.S.C....

...We conclude that this statute and our precedent, Baptista v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 640 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2011), squarely foreclose Pereira’s and De Freitas’s causes of action. Assuming for the sake of argument that Florida Statute § 655.85 would prohibit Florida branches of out-of-state state banks from charging a fee to cash a check presented in person,3 that law would apply “to the same extent” that it applies to out-of-state national banks....

...state bank’s attempt to charge a fee for cashing a check in person. 4  Case: 13-10458 Date Filed: 05/30/2014 Page: 5 of 7 explained previously, federal law preempts Florida Statute § 655.85 with respect to national banks....

...the OCC specifically authorizes banks to charge fees to non-account-holders presenting checks for payment. The state’s prohibition on charging fees to non- account-holders . . . is in substantial conflict with federal authorization to charge such fees.”). Therefore, even if § 655.85 would otherwise apply to Regions, federal law preempts its application.4 Although unnecessary to resolve the question at hand, we note that the legislative history surrounding § 1831a(j)(1) supports our reading that Florida Statute § 655.85 is preempted....

...s are treated. Floor statements from Congress as it considered the amendment in 1997 support this reading.5 The plain language of § 1831a(j)(1) along with its legislative history, combined with binding circuit precedent, convince us that § 655.85 is preempted as to out-of-state state banks. Therefore, Pereira and De Freitas have failed to state a claim in Counts I and II of their complaint. III. Because federal law preempts Florida Statute § 655.85 with respect to national banks, by operation of 12 U.S.C. § 1831a(j)(1), so too does it preempt § 655.85 with respect to Regions....

...k regarding the propriety of a service charge for cashing the check when it is presented in person. In Baptista v. PNC Bank, National Ass’n, 91 So.3d 230 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012), we addressed a similar controversy involving similar facts. We held that section 655.85, Florida Statutes (2009), prohibits a bank from charging such a fee....

...§ 1831a(j)(l) does not preempt the state statute. Although this case involves similar facts, we are asked to confront differ *846 ent legal arguments. The trial court ⅛ this case concluded that 12 U.S.C. § 1831a(j)(2) (a statutory subsection not addressed in Baptista) preempts section 655.85, Florida Statutes (2012). It also concluded that section 655.85 affords no private cause of action. For these reasons, the trial court dismissed Appellant’s section 655.85 claim, as well as other statutory claims and a claim for unjust enrichment....

...y scheme but they are not preempted from imposing more stringent ones. When the statutory definition of “activity” is used to interpret § 1831a(j)(2), it is clear that this federal statute has nothing to do with the state statute at issue here. Section 655.85 does not pertain to the acquisition or retention of an investment....

...Conversely, we cannot envision a federal objective for giving out-of-state state banks the same privileges as those afforded to national banks, which essentially has the effect of putting the host state’s state banks at a competitive disadvantage. Although the trial court erred in determining that § 1831a(j)(2) preempts section 655.85, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that section 655.85 does not afford a private party a cause of action to redress a violation of the statute, an issue we were not asked to address in Baptista ....

...Nor do we think § 183la(j)(l) pertains to the type of state law at issue here. It addresses laws including “community reinvestment, consumer protection, fair lending, and establishment of intrastate branches.” The state státute at issue here, section 655.85, does not fall into any of these categories....

processing of a cheek in violation of Florida Statute § 655.85, which the Court found was preempted by the National

...When she cashed the check in-person at a local Chase branch, Chase charged her a $6.00 fee because she was not herself an account holder. While she paid the charge, she later filed a putative class action complaint against Chase, purporting to state two causes of action for recovery: 1) violation of Section 655.85, Florida Statutes; and 2) unjust enrichment....

...On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit considered whether a state consumer protection statute that was purposefully directed at a bank's fee-charging authority was preempted by the NBA. To make this determination, the court considered the Florida statute in relation to the NBA. Specifically, Section 655.85 states as follows: Settlement of Checks....

...rve District; however, an institution may not settle any check drawn on it otherwise than at par. The provisions of this section do not apply with respect to the settlement of a check sent to such institution as a special collection item. Fla. Stat. § 655.85 (emphasis added)....

...Barnett itself held that the determinative question in considering preemption of a state statute by the NBA was "whether the state statute forbids, or ... impairs significantly the exercise of a power that Congress explicitly granted." Id. (quoting Barnett, 517 U.S. at 33, 116 S.Ct. 1103). As such, in determining if Section 655.85, Florida Statutes, was preempted by the NBA, the Eleventh Circuit implicitly considered whether the state statute "forbids ......

...For this proposition, ATS relies on Baptista v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 640 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2001). In Baptista, the plaintiff complained of a fee she was charged by Chase Bank in exchange for cashing a check. Id. at 1196. Baptista asserted a violation of Fla. Stat. § 655.85 (1992), which provided that checks presented to paying 27  USCA11 Case: 19-10474 Date Filed: 02/02/2021 Page: 28 of 31 institutions must be settled “at par,” and...

...exchange for the fee he now challenges. 14 The statute has since been amended to clarify that it does not prohibit institutions from deducting a fee from the face value of the check “if the check is presented to the institution by the payee in person.” Fla. Stat. § 655.85 (2014). 28  USCA11 Case: 19-10474 Date Filed: 02/02/2021 Page: 29 of 31 Pincus suggests that Baptista does not control....

check drawn on one of its accounts violates section 655.85, Florida Statutes (2009). That statutory provision

...Plaintiffs received less in cash than the face amount of the checks. (PL’s Compl. (Doc. No. 4), pp. 2-3.) Plaintiffs each allege two claims against Defendant in a complaint filed on August 7, 2012, in state court: (1) violation of Florida Statute § 655.85, which states, in part, “an institution may not settle any check drawn on it otherwise than at par”; and (2) unjust enrichment under the common law of Florida....

...ence that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 , 129 S.Ct. 1937 , 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 , 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). IY. ANALYSIS A. Federal Law Preempts Florida Statute § 655.85 The crux of Plaintiffs’ argument is that a statute in Florida’s financial institutions *1278 code prohibits banks from charging check cashing fees....

...rve District; however, an institution may not settle any check drawn on it otherwise than at par. The provisions of this section do not apply with respect to the settlement of a check sent to such institution as a special collection item. Fla. Stat. § 655.85 (2012)....

...r of law: federal preemption, violation of the dormant commerce clause, and lack of a private right of action in the statute. Of these arguments, the Court need only consider federal preemption to find that Plaintiffs’ claims under Florida Statute § 655.85 should be dismissed....

...Preempted as applied to National Banks This Court recently held, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, that regulations promulgated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) pursuant to the National Bank Act (“NBA”) preempted Florida Statute § 655.85 with respect to a federally-chartered bank....

...Congress.” Mortier, 501 U.S. at 605 , 111 S.Ct. *1279 2476 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Without restating the entirety of this Court’s previous opinion or the complementary reasoning of the Eleventh Circuit, Florida Statute § 655.85 conflicts with federal banking law, embodied by the NBA and administrative regulations of the OCC, to such a great extent that it is preempted under the Dodd-Frank Act’s standard....

...hartered banks. Plaintiffs argue that § 1831a(j)(l) merely addresses the applicability of state laws to banks, not their enforceability. To escape the Eleventh Circuit’s prior preemption holding in Baptista , Plaintiffs argue that Florida Statute § 655.85 applies equally to all banks, but is only enforceable against state-chartered banks because federal law preempts enforcement against federally-chartered banks....

...ate banking legislation under consideration in that case. The statutes at issue in the case at bar should be interpreted in the same fashion, rendering out-of-state state banks the equivalents of out-of-state national banks vis-a-vis Florida Statute § 655.85....

...y supports a finding that Congress intended to preempt *1282 the imposition of host-state banking laws on out-of-state state banks to the same extent that they are preempted as to out-of-state national banks. As previously discussed, Florida Statute § 655.85 is inapplicable to national banks under the NBA and various OCC regulations. Based on this Court’s interpretation of the first sentence of 12 U.S.C. § 1831a(j)(l), Florida Statute § 655.85 is equally inapplicable to out-of-state state banks....

...Code § 5 -5A-18(2) (2012) (“Corporations formed for the purpose of doing business as a bank may ... [rjeceive and pay out deposits, with or without interest, pay checks, and impose charges for any services----”). Therefore, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under Florida Statute § 655.85....

...The Court does not need to reconcile these decisions because federal law preempts the Florida Statute. . As an initial observation, this Court is not bound by the decision of Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal in Baptista v. PNC Bank with respect to its holding that Florida Statute § 655.85 is not preempted by federal law....

...See Wells Fargo Bank of Texas NA v. James, 321 F.3d 488 (5th Cir.2003) (finding that Texas "par value statute” was preempted by federal banking regulation that allows banks to charge fees for services); Baptista (affirming district court's ruling that section 655.85, Florida Statutes, was preempted by federal banking law); Britt v....

...Chase charged a $6.00 fee to provide cash immediately. In response, Baptista filed this class action on January 28, 2010, against Chase seeking damages on two counts. First, she alleged that Chase’s charging of a check-cashing service fee violated Fla. Stat. § 655.85. Second, she brought a claim for unjust enrichment. Chase filed its Motion to Dismiss on March 1, 2010, moving to dismiss on three primary grounds. First, Chase alleged that Fla. Stat. § 655.85 did not apply to Baptista because that statute only regulates fees charged between banks.1 Second, Chase alleged that both of Baptista’s claims are preempted by the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C....

...On June 4, 2010, the district court granted Chase’s motion, dismissing both of Baptista’s claims as preempted by the NBA, and Baptista appealed. Baptista alleges that reversal of the district court is proper because: (1) a clear reading of Fla. Stat. § 655.85 shows that it is applicable to a fee charged on a personal check presented by the payee in person; (2) Fla. Stat. § 655.85 is not preempted by the NBA; and (3) Baptista’s unjust enrichment claim under Florida law is not preempted by the NBA....

...o. Hill v. White, 321 F.3d 1334, 1335 (11th Cir. 2003). III. The Florida statute at issue specifically prohibits a bank from “settl[ing] any check drawn on it otherwise than at par.” Fla. Stat. § 655.85. The district court concluded that § 655.85 was preempted by the NBA, specifically citing two provisions....

...ks for 6 payment would clearly and irreconcilably conflict with the OCC’s allowance of the charging of such fees. Id. at 495. We adopt the reasoning of the Fifth Circuit and hold that Fla. Stat. § 655.85 is preempted by the OCC’s regulations promulgated pursuant to the NBA. Congress clearly intended that the OCC be empowered to regulate banking and banking-related activities....

...a significant objective of the NBA and regulations promulgated thereunder, Williamson is inapposite to this case. 7 that because Baptista’s unjust enrichment claim relies on identical facts as her claim under Fla. Stat. § 655.85, it too is preempted.3 For the reasons discussed above, we affirm the judgment of dismissal. AFFIRMED. 3 We would also conclude that Baptista’s unjust enrichment claim fails as a matter of law because Baptista cannot prove each element of the claim....

...When she cashed the check in-person at a local Chase branch, Chase charged her a $6.00 fee because she was not herself an account holder. While she paid the charge, she later filed a putative class action complaint against Chase, purporting to state two causes of action for recovery: 1) violation of Section 655.85, Florida Statutes; and 2) unjust enrichment....

...On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit considered whether a state consumer protection statute that was purposefully directed at a bank’s fee-charging authority was preempted by the NBA. To make this determination, the court considered the Florida statute in relation to the NBA. Specifically, Section 655.85 states as follows: Settlement of Checks....

...rve District; however, an institution may not settle any check drawn on it otherwise than at par. The provisions of this section do not apply with respect to the settlement of a check sent to such institution as a special collection item. Fla. Stat. § 655.85 (emphasis added)....

...Barnett itself held that the determinative question in considering preemption of a state statute by the NBA was “whether the state statute forbids, or ... impairs significantly the exercise of a power that Congress explicitly granted.” Id. (quoting Barnett, 517 U.S. at 33 , 116 S.Ct. 1103 ). As such, in determining if Section 655.85, Florida Statutes, was preempted by the NBA, the Eleventh Circuit implicitly considered whether the state statute “forbids ......

...t against appellee, Bank of America. We affirm. Britt's complaint alleged that the Bank's practice of charging non-account holders $5.00 as a condition for cashing payroll checks (written by Britt's employer, an account holder at the Bank), violates section 655.85 of the Florida Statutes (2008) (which provides that an institution may not settle any check drawn on it otherwise then at par)....

...§ 7.4002 (2008); see also OCC, Interpretive Letter No. 932 (Aug. 17, 2001); OCC, Interpretive Letter No. 933 (Aug. 17, 2001); OCC, Interpretive Letter 934 (Aug. 20, 2001); OCC, Interpretive Letter No. 1094 (Feb. 27, 2008). Thus, even assuming arguendo that section 655.85 of the Florida Statutes prohibits the Bank from charging convenience fees, said prohibition would be pre-empted by federal law....

...against an account at par, was pre-empted because the state statute prohibited the exercise of a power expressly granted to national banks by federal law); Baptista v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2010 WL 2342436 (M.D.Fla. June 4, 2010)(holding that section 655.85 of the Florida Statutes is pre-empted *811 by federal law). Accordingly, the trial court did not err by dismissing Britt's complaint. AFFIRMED. LAWSON and EVANDER, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 655.85 of the Florida Statutes (2008) provides: 655.85 Settlement of checks....