From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Penner v. Chase Bank USA NA

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nov 4, 2011
457 F. App'x 693 (9th Cir. 2011)

Opinion

No. 06-35726 D.C. No. CV-06-05092-FDB

11-04-2011

LISA PENNER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; et al., Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. CHASE BANK USA NA and BANK ONE DELAWARE NA, Defendants - Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Franklin D. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding


Argued and Submitted February 4, 2009

Submission Withdrawn February 10, 2009

Resubmitted September 16, 2011

Seattle, Washington

Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Following the death of Judge Pamela A. Rymer, Judge Stephen Reinhardt was drawn as her replacement on the panel.

Plaintiffs sued Chase Bank for its practice of increasing cardholders' interest rates upon default or delinquency and retroactively applying the increased rates to the beginning of the latest payment cycle.

1. As plaintiffs concede, their Truth in Lending Act and breach of contract claims have been foreclosed by the Supreme Court's decision in Chase Bank USA, N.A. v. McCoy, 131 S. Ct. 871 (2011).

2. Plaintiffs' declaratory relief, unconscionability and illegal penalty claims are foreclosed because Delaware law permits Chase's practices. See McCoy v. Chase Manhattan Bank, USA, Nat. Assoc., 654 F.3d 971, 975 (9th Cir. 2011).

3. Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under the Washington Consumer Protection Act (WCPA), Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.020. To succeed under the WCPA, plaintiffs must show that Chase's actions had "the capacity to deceive a substantial portion of the public." Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 719 P.2d 531, 535 (Wash. 1986) (emphasis omitted). Here, however, "Chase openly and expressly notifies cardholders of the actions it reserves the right to take in the event of a default." McCoy, 654 F.3d at 975.

The parties' October 6, 2008 and October 20, 2008 motions for judicial notice are denied.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Penner v. Chase Bank USA NA

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nov 4, 2011
457 F. App'x 693 (9th Cir. 2011)
Case details for

Penner v. Chase Bank USA NA

Case Details

Full title:LISA PENNER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; et…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Nov 4, 2011

Citations

457 F. App'x 693 (9th Cir. 2011)