The customer received a phone call from a representative of his bank who asked him about two suspicious wire transfers, totaling $97,100. The customer responded that he did not authorize or make the transfers, and the bank employee ensured the customer that she would cancel the wires and suspend the customer’s account so an investigation could start. The bank employee called the customer the next day, requesting a verification code. She also informed the customer that he would receive a follow-up call from her the following day. When the customer never received a call, he traveled to one of the bank’s branches. At the branch, he was told that a total of three wire transfers had occurred from his account. The bank cancelled one wire transfer but told the customer that it could not recover the original two wire transfers. The customer then filed for an investigation, and the representative told the customer he could also file a complaint. The customer then filed a four-part complaint in state court against the bank. The bank moved to dismiss each of the customer’s complaints.
In Dickson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 25-80095-CIV-CANNON, 2025 WL 1517528, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93992 (S.D. Fla. May 16, 2025) (opinion not yet released for publication), the court dismissed all four counts of the customer’s complaint against the bank. The bank presented the following main arguments: “(1) Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) does not apply to Wells Fargo; (2) the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA) does not apply to the transactions at issue here; and (3) the negligence and unjust enrichment counts are preempted by Article 4 of the Uniform Commercial Code as codified under Florida law.” Under the first argument, the court agreed with the bank that the FDUTPA did not apply because it exempted banks that were regulated by federal agencies. Fla. Stat. § 501.212(4)(c); In re Kachkar, 769 F. App'x 673, 682 (11th Cir. 2019). The victim did not dispute this argument; the victim simply stated that it was too premature to argue because “nothing in the complaint suggests that the bank is a federally regulated bank.” The court concluded that there could be no dispute that the bank was a federally regulated bank. For count two, the bank argued the negligence claim brought by the plaintiff “is barred by the independent tort doctrine.” A plaintiff must have four elements to plead negligence: “(1) a duty; (2) breach of that duty; (3) causation; and (4) harm.” The victim argued the bank owed him a duty “to keep his funds safe, maintain the privacy and security of his account information, prevent unauthorized access, and flag suspicious activities concerning his funds.” However, the bank presented an Account Agreement and an Online Access Agreement, which delineated such duties as they pertained to the wire transfers. The court held that the customer brought the negligence claim simply because he alleged the bank did not “follow its contract.” The tort doctrine barred such a claim. In the third count, the victim alleged a violation of the EFTA for the bank’s failure to reimburse him. But the bank stated that the EFTA did not apply to wire transfers. The court concluded that wire transfers fell outside of the EFTA because the definition of electronic fund transfers did not include wire transfers. Finally, the bank alleged the plaintiff failed to plead the elements of unjust enrichment: “(1) plaintiff has conferred a benefit on defendant; (2) defendant voluntarily accepted and retained that benefit; and (3) the circumstances are such that it would be inequitable for defendant to retain it without paying the value thereof.” The court concluded that merely “presuming” that the bank benefitted by earning interest on the accounts was insufficient. Therefore, the court dismissed counts one and two of the customer’s complaint with prejudice and counts three and four without prejudice.
By Olivia Lewis [email protected]
Edited By Taylor O’Brien [email protected]
Edited By Hayden Mariott [email protected]