Company: FITBI
Filing Date: 2025-08-05
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0000035527-25-000171
Chunk: 306

Company: FIFTH THIRD BANCORP
Filing Date: 2025-08-05
Form: 10-Q
Item: Item 1
Chunk 306
---
 Litigation (Case No. 1:12-CV-851). On behalf of a putative class, the plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary and statutory damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest. On March 30, 2015, the court dismissed all claims alleged in the consolidated lawsuit except a claim under the TILA. On May 28, 2019, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim and remanded for further proceedings. The plaintiffs’ claimed damages for the alleged breach of contract claim exceed $440 million, plus prejudgment interest. On March 26, 2021, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On March 29, 2023, the trial court issued an order granting summary judgement on plaintiffs’ TILA claim, with statutory damages capped at $2 million plus costs and attorney fees. Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of contract proceeded to trial beginning on April 17, 2023. On April 27, 2023, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Bank, finding a breach of contract, but that the voluntary payment doctrine is a complete defense to the breach of contract claim. On September 30, 2024, the trial court issued a decision denying post-trial motions related to the jury verdict. On October 30, 2024, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, and on November 7, 2024, Fifth Third filed a notice of cross appeal.Howards v. Fifth Third Bank On March 8, 2018, Plaintiff Troy Howards filed a putative class action against Fifth Third Bank in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 1:18-CV-869, S.D. OH 2018), alleging that Fifth Third improperly charged certain fees related to insufficient funds, customer overdrafts, and out-of-network ATM use. Venue was subsequently transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiff filed claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, for violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (Ca. Bus. & Prof. Code sec. 17200, et seq.), and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code sec. 1750 et seq.). Plaintiff seeks to represent putative nationwide classes and California classes of consumers allegedly charged improper repeated insufficient funds