FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J AN 25, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 13 14 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 61 13 3- CV-J IC CUNEYT DURU, anin di vi du al , Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us HSBC C ARD SERVICES, INC ., a fo rei gn co rp or at io n aut ho riz ed to do bu si ne ss inth e St at e o f Cal ifo rn ia , et al ., Defen da nt s, HSBC B ANK NEVADA, N.A ., fo rm erl y kn own as Hou se ho ldBan k (S B), N.A., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J anua ry 25 , 20 11 )Befo re BLACK, CARNES a ndW ILSON, Cir cu itJu dg es .

PER CURI AM: Cu ne yt Du ruap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f HSBC C ardServ ic es , In c.’s m ot io n t o d is m is s u nd er Fe de ral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 1 2( b) (6 ) fo r fai lu re to st at e a cl ai m

inhe r cl as s ac ti on co m

pl ai ntag ai ns t HSB C. Duru ’s com pl ai nt al le ge d a m on g o th er the or ie s t ha t HSB C b reac he d t he im pl ie d c ov en an t o f go od fai th an d fa ir d eal in g u nd er Nev ad a la w th ataro se fro m Duru ’s cred itcard
cu st om er ag reem en t wi th HSBC. She co nt en ds th athe r co m pl ai ntsu ffi ci en tl y 1 al le ge s t ha t the cred itcardag reem en t i s ambig uo us an d tha t HSB C u se d t ha t
am bi gu it y to de li be rat el y

co nt rav en e th e in te nt io n a ndsp iri t o f th e co nt ractan d br each it s i m

pl ie d c ov en an t o f go odfai th an d fa ir d eal in g. W e rev ie w de n ov o t he di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f a Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) m ot io n t o di sm is s. Edward s v . Prim e, In c., 60 2 F .3d12 76 , 12 91 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). “ W e ta ke th e fac tu al all eg at io ns inth e co m pl ai ntas t ru e an d c on st ru e th em inth e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e p la in ti ffs .” Id . Butwe are n otrequi redto acce ptth e le ga l
co nc lu si on s i n t he co m

pl ai ntas t ru e. Sin al tra in al v. Co ca-C ol a Co ., 57 8 F .3d 12 52 , 12 60 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). And“ th e fac tu al all eg at io ns ina co m pl ai ntm us t po ss es s en ou gh he ft t o s etforth a pl au si bl e en ti tl em en t t o re li ef.” Fi n. Se c.
The c hoice- of-law

provision in the cre dit card a gree ment states it is gove rned by Neva da 1 law, the district cour

t applied Neva da law, a

nd no one conte sts its application in this Court. 2Ass ur an ce, In c. v. St ep he ns , Inc ., 50 0 F .3d12 76 , 12 82 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (quo ta ti on

m ark s o m it te d) (qu ot in g B el l At l. Co rp . v. Twom bl y , 55 0 U.S. 5 44 , 55 7– 58 , 12 7 S.Ct . 19 55 , 19 66 –6 7 (2 00 7) ). Und er Nev ad a co nt ractlaw, “ [a] con tra ctis am bi gu ou s o nl y

when itis
subjec t t o m or e th anon e rea so nabl e in te rp ret at io n,” Sta te ex rel . Mas to v. Se co nd Ju di ci al Dis t. Co urt ex rel . Cou nt y of Wash oe , 19 9 P .3d82 8, 8 32 (Nev . 20 09 ), an d
co urts are n otfree to m od ify or v ary th e te rm s o f anun am bi gu ou s ag reem en t, Kald i v . Farm ers Ins . Exch ., 21 P.3d16 , 21 (Nev . 20 01 ). Bu t a p arty m ay st il l br each th e im

pl ie d c ov en an t o f go odfai th an d fa ir d eal in g wh ere “ th e te rm s o f a
co nt ractare l it eral ly com pl ie d wi th bu t o ne party to the co ntractde li be rat el y co nt rav en es th e in te nt io n a ndsp iri t o f th e co nt ract .” Hil to n Ho te ls Co rp . v. Bu tc h Lewis Pro ds ., Inc ., 80 8 P .2d91 9, 9 22 –2 3 (Ne v. 1 99 1) . To pr ov e a co nt ractua l cl ai m fora br each of t he im

pl ie d c ov en an t o f go odfai th an d fa ir d eal in g, a pl ai nt iff m us t s ho w th atth e p la in ti ff an d d efen da ntwere p art ie s t o aco nt ract , th e de fen da ntbre ach edit s i m pl ie d dut y

by perfo rm in g i n am an ne r un fai th fu l t o t he pu rp os e o f th e co nt ract , andth e p la in ti ff’s jus ti fie d e xp ect at io ns were d en ie d. Se e Perry v. J or da n, 9 00 P.2d33 5, 3 38 (Nev . 19 95 ). Duru’s co m

pl ai ntall eg es th atth e p ro vi si on inth e cre di t ca rdag reem en t de fin in g “ da il y

pe rio di c rat e” i s ambig uo us . The cre di t ca rdag reem en t d efi ne s t he

3da il y

pe rio di c rat e as “ th e co rres po nd in g [a nnua l p erce nt ag e rat e] div id edby 365 .” Sh e al le ge s t ha t “ 36 5” is am bi gu ou s b ecau se , inad di ti on to be in g re adas a nu m be r, itco ul d a ls o b e rea so nabl y readas t he nu m

be r of da y s i n ay ear. Sh e fu rth er al le ge s t ha t HSB C u se d tha t am bi gu it y to un fai th fu ll y

cal cu la te th e d ai ly pe rio di c rat e to it s adva nt ag e dur in g l eap y ears , whi chco nt ai n 3 66 da y s, an d
ov erch arg e it s cu st om ers du rin g t ho se y ears . Duru’s al le ga ti on s d o n otsupp ort a c on tra ctua l cl ai m of b reac h o f th e im pl ie d c ov en an t o f go odfai th an d fa ir d eal in g u nd er Nev ad a la w. The cre di t ca rd ag reem en t i s n otam

bi gu ou s. Th e p la in lan gu ag e o f th e cre di t ca rdag reem en t s et s th e d en om in at orforth e d ai ly peri od ic rat e in te res t ca lc ul at io n a t 3 65 , no t a
va riabl e b as edonth e num be r of da y s i n t he y ear. Th e p ur po se of t he cred itcard ag reem en t was to ex te ndcred itto Duruinex ch an ge forth e p aym en t o f in te res t at rat es ag reedon by the pa rti es . Bot h p art ie s ag reedth atth e d ai ly peri od ic rat e wou ldbe cal cu la te d b y

di vi di ng th e an nu al pe rcen ta ge rat e b y 36 5. HSBC ’s cal cu la ti on of t ha t ag reed -to in te res t ra te durin g l eap y ears was n otun fai th fu l t o th e p ur po se of t he ag reem en t an d Du rum ak es no factua l al le ga ti on s t ha t HSB C’s pe rfo rm an ce d en ie d h er jus ti fie d e xp ect at io ns . AFFIRMED.

4