T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he H onor abl e J a ne A . R e s t ani , Judge f orthe U . S . C ourtof ** I nt e rna t i ona l T r a de , s i tt i ng byde s i gna t i on. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T T YR ON E L . R OB I NS ON , P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. B AN K O F AME R I C A, NA D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 11- 57194 D. C . No . 2 : 1 1 - c v - 0 3 9 3 9 - GH KJ EM ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia G e or ge H . K i ng, C hi e f

D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d M ay7, 2013 P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: W A R D L A W and M U R G U IA , C i rc ui tJudg es , and R E S T A N I, Judg e. ** T y r one R obi ns on ( “ R obi ns on” ) s ue d B ank of A m e r i c a( “ B oA ” ) on be ha l f of a put at i ve cl as s f

or fr aud and un fa i r/ dece pt i ve tra de pract i ce s r el at ed t o fee s c ha r ge d pur s ua ntt o B oA ’ s C a s hP ayc ar d pr ogr a m . R obi ns on c l a i m s tha tB oA 

# FI LED MA Y22 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

i m prop er l y f

ai l ed t o d i sc l ose thatthe $1 . 50 /m on th servi ce char ge thatC as hP ay c us t om e r s a gr e e d t o pa yf orthe a c c ountc oul d be a voi de d byw i thdr aw i ng a l l f unds f r o m th e a c c o u n t e a c h m o n th , p r io rto a s s e s s m e n t o f th e f e e . R o b in s o n b a s e dh is c l a i m s on vi ol a t i ons of

the C a l i f

orni aC ons um e r s L e ga l R e m e di e s A c t( C a l . C i v. C ode § 1770( a ) ) , C a l i f

orni aU nf

a i rC om pe t i t i on L aw ( C a l . B us . & P r of . C ode § 17200, e ts e q. ) , a nd f

r aud byom i s s i on s t a tut e ( C a l . C i v. C ode § 1710) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtgr a nt e d B oA ’ s R ul e 12( c ) m ot i on f orj udgm e nton the pl e a di ngs and di s m i s s e d R obi ns on’ s c om pl a i nt , r e a s oni ng tha thi s c l a i m s w e r e pr e e m pt e d bythe N a t i o n a l Ban kA c t( “N BA ” ) , 1 2 U . S. C. § 2 4 ( 2 0 0 6 ) . W e a f f i rm. T he N B A perm i t s nat i on albank s t o “ exer ci se . . . al l such i nci dent alpo w er s as shal l be neces saryt o carryon the bu si ness of bank i ng . ” I d. T hese i nci dent al pow e r s a r e e xpounde d upon byr e gul a t i ons of the O f f i c e of the C om ptr ol l e rof

the C urre ncy ( “ O C C ”) . S ee , e. g. , N at i on sB ank o f N . C . , N . A . v. V ar i abl e A nn ui ty L i fe I ns . C o, 513 U . S . 251, 256–58 ( 1995) ( pr ovi di ng f orC he vr on de f

e r e nc e ) . “ [ T ] he usual pres um pt i on agai nstfe dera l pree m pt i on of st at e l aw i s i napp l i cabl e t o federa l b a n k in g r e g u la tio n .” W e lls F a r g o B an kN .A . v . B o u tr is , 4 1 9 F .3 d9 4 9 , 9 5 6 ( 9 th C i r . 2005) . A s t a t e l a w i s pr e e m pt e d w he r e i t“ s t and[ s ] a s a n obs t a c l e t o the a c c o m p lis h m e n t” o f

o n e o f th e p u rp o s e s o f

th e N B A o r“p r e v e n t[ s ] o rs ig n if ic an tly i nt e r f e r e [ s ] w i th the na t i ona l ba nk’ s e xe r c i s e of i t s pow e r s . ” B arne ttB ank of3

M a r io n C n ty ., N .A . v . N e ls o n , 5 1 7 U .S . 2 5 , 3 1 , 3 3 ( 1 9 9 6 ) . T h e O C C h a s in c o rp o r a te dth is p r e e m p tio n s tan d ar din to its r e g u la tio n s . U n d e r1 2 C .F .R . § 7 .4 0 0 7 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( 2 0 1 2 ) , “[ a ] n a tio n a l b an km aye x e r c is e its d e p o s it- ta k in g p o w e r s w ith o u t r e g ar dto s ta te law lim ita tio n s c o n c e rn in g . . . [d] i sc l osure r equi re m ent s. ” T he sam e r egul at i on prov i des thatst at e t ortl aw s “ ar e n o t in c o n s is te n t w ith th e d e p o s it- ta k in g p o w e r s o f n a tio n a l b an k s a n dap p lyto n a tio n a l b a n k s to th e e x te n t c o n s is te n t w ith th e d e c is io n o f th e S up r e m e C o u rt in B a rn e tt B a n ko f

M a r io n C o u n ty , N .A .” I d . § 7 .4 0 0 7 ( c ) ( 2 ) . A pp l yi ng B arnettB ank o f M ar i on C ou nty, N . A . , w e have expl ai ned that

“ [ s ] t a t e l a w s of

ge ne r a l appl i c a t i on, w hi c h m e r e l yr e qui r e a l l bus i ne s s e s ( i nc l udi ng na t i ona l ba nks ) t o r e f

r a i n f r om f r audul e nt , unf

a i r , ori l l e ga l be ha vi or , do not nece ss ar i l y i m pai r abank ’ s abi l i ty t o exerci se i t s r ea l es t at e l endi ng po w er s. ” M a rt i ne z v. W e l l s F a r go H om e M ort g. , I nc . , 598 F . 3d 549, 555 ( 9th C i r . 2010) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . F u rth e r , in G u tie rr e z v . W e lls F ar g o B an k , N A , w e r e c e n tly h e ldth a t e v e n if

as ta te m a yp r o h ib it f

r au du le n t a f

f irm a tiv e m is r e p r e s e n ta tio n s , a

“ r e qui r e m e ntt o m a ke pa rt i c ul a rdi s c l os ur e s f a l l s s qua r e l yw i thi n the purvi e w of f e d e r a l b a n k in g r e g u la tio n a n dis e x p r e s s lyp r e e m p te d .” 7 0 4 F .3 d7 1 2 , 7 2 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 2 ) . R obi ns on’ s unde r l y i ng c l a i m s , a l though the or e t i c a l l yba s e d on l aw s of4

g e n e r a l ap p l i c ab i l i ty , d o n o tr e s tup o n a n ya f f i rm a t i v e m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n b yB o A, despi t e R ob i nson ’ s argum ent s t o the contrary . In fa ct , R ob i nson ac kn ow l edges th ath e readth e t erm s an dco n d i t i o n s p ro v i d edb y B o A , an dB o A en fo rcedth o se p r o v is io n s , a s w r itte n , a g a in s t R o b in s o n a n dc h ar g e dh im th e d is c lo s e dm o n th ly s e rvi c e f e e . R obi ns on’ s onl yc ont e nt i on i s tha tB oA w a s r e qui r e d t o di s c l os e not o n lyth e f

e e it w o u ldc h a r g e , b u t a ls o its c o lle c tio n p o lic y , in c lu d in g its d e c is io n to w ai v e i t s co l l ect i o n ri g h t s ag ai n stcert ai n d el i n q u en tacco u n th o l d ers w h o se r e m a i ni ng f

unds c oul d notc ove rthe f e e . R obi ns on uns uc c e s s f ul l ya tt e m pt s t o hi de fr om the ob vi ou s c on clusi on thathe i s att em pt i ng t o u se C al i forni a l aw t o i m po se a spec i fi c di sc l osure obl i gat i on on B oA w henever i tdi sc l oses any f ee . G ut i erre z, ho w ever , fore cl oses R ob i nson ’ s argum entthatun der the O C C re gu l at i on s, no l aw o f g e n e r a l ap p lic ab ilityc o n c e rn in g “T o rts ” c an e v e rb e p r e e m p te d . I d . A cc ordi ng l y, w e a gree w i th the di stri ctcourtthatR ob i nson ’ s s t at e l aw cl ai m s are pr e e m pt e d. AF F I RME D.