IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

LOIS MARKOFF, individually and on ) 

behalf of all others similarly situated, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) Case No. 

 v. ) 

 ) 

INDEPENDENT BANK CORPORATION, ) CLASS ACTION 

 ) JURY DEMANDED 

 Defendant. ) 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

 Lois Markoff (“Plaintiff”), by her attorneys, The Consumer Advocacy Center, 

P.C. and Liblang & Associates, P.C., states as follows for her Class Action Complaint 

against Independent Bank (“Defendant”). 

The Parties

1. Plaintiff is a Michigan citizen and resides in this district. 

2. Defendant is a bank with its principal place of business in this district. 

Jurisdiction and Venue

3. This Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 

because this action is brought pursuant to the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. § 

1693 et seq., and Regulation E, 12 C.F.R. § 205.1 et seq. 

4. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because the 

Defendant does business throughout the State of Michigan, including the Eastern District 

of Michigan. 

Case 2:09-cv-12639-DPH-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/07/09 Page 1 of 5
Statutory/Regulatory Authority

5. The Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1693 et seq. (“EFTA”), and 

its implementing Regulation E, 12 C.F.R. § 205.1 et seq., require an automated teller 

machine (“ATM”) operator to provide notice to consumers that the operator will impose 

a fee on consumers for conducting a transaction at an ATM and the amount of such a fee. 

6. Specifically, 15 U.S.C. § 1693b(d)(3) and 12 C.F.R. § 205.16(c) require that 

an ATM operator disclose (a) on the ATM, that a fee will be imposed and (b) on the 

ATM screen, that a fee will be imposed and the amount of such a fee. 

7. The EFTA, 15 U.S.C. § 1693b(d)(3)(C), and Regulation E, 12 C.F.R. § 

205.16(e), prohibit the imposition of a fee for using an ATM if the foregoing notice 

requirements are not met. 

Facts Related To Plaintiff

8. On July 7, 2008, Plaintiff used an automated teller machine (“ATM”) located 

at 3800 Alpine Ave., Grand Rapids, MI. 

9. On July 7, 2008, Plaintiff was charged a $2.50 fee to withdraw money from 

the ATM. 

10. On July 7, 2008, there was no notice posted on or near the ATM that disclosed 

that users would be charged any fee for using the ATM. 

11. Defendant has a wide network of ATMs, a significant number of which did 

not have Posted Fee Notices during the relevant time period. 

COUNT I 

VIOLATION OF EFTA AND REGULATION E

12. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1-11. 

13. Plaintiff brings this Count on behalf of herself and a Class of all persons who 

Case 2:09-cv-12639-DPH-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/07/09 Page 2 of 5
were charged a transaction fee for the use of any Independent Bank automated teller 

machine when Independent Bank did not post a notice on the automated teller machine 

that it would impose a transaction fee on users of that automated teller machine. 

14. The putative class consists of hundreds of persons and is so numerous that 

joinder of all putative class members, whether otherwise required or permitted, is 

impracticable. The actual number of putative class members is in the exclusive control of 

Defendant. 

15. Questions of law and fact common to the Class predominate over any 

questions affecting only individual putative class members, including: 

(a) Whether, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1693b(d)(3)(A) and 12 C.F.R. § 

205.16, Defendant was an ATM operator at all relevant times 

during the class period that imposed a fee on consumers for 

providing host transfer services to those consumers; and 

(b) Whether, at all relevant times during the class period, Defendant 

failed to comply with the notice requirements of 15 U.S.C. § 

1693b(d)(3) and 12 C.F.R. § 205.16(c). 

16. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the putative class members, 

including: 

(a) Plaintiff and all putative class members used an ATM operated by 

Defendant; 

(b) Defendant failed to provide notices compliant with 15 U.S.C. § 

1693b(d)(3) and 12 C.F.R. § 205.16(c) to Plaintiff and all putative 

class members; and 

(c) Defendant illegally imposed a fee on Plaintiff and all putative class 

members for their respective use of Defendants’ ATMs. 

17. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class and 

Plaintiff has hired counsel able and experienced in class action litigation. 

18. Questions of law or fact common to the Class predominate over any questions 

Case 2:09-cv-12639-DPH-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/07/09 Page 3 of 5
affecting only individual putative class members, and a class action is superior to other 

available methods for the full and efficient adjudication of the controversy. 

19. This Court and the parties would enjoy economies in litigating common issues 

on a class-wide basis instead of a repetitive individual basis. 

20. The size of each putative class member’s actual damages is too small to make 

individual litigation an economically viable option. 

21. No unusual difficulties will likely occur in the management of the Class as all 

questions of law or fact to be litigated at the liability stage are common to the putative 

class and all compensatory relief is concomitant with a liability finding and can be 

calculated by automated and objective means. 

22. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1693b(d)(3)(D)(i) and 12 C.F.R. § 205.16(a), 

Defendant was an ATM operator at all times relevant to this action. 

23. Defendant was the operator of each ATM at the locations referenced in 

paragraph 12 above at all times relevant to this action. 

24. Defendant failed to comply with the notice requirements of 15 U.S.C. § 

1693b(d)(3) and 12 C.F.R. § 205.16(c) when providing ATM services to Plaintiff and all 

putative class members. 

25. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1693b(d)(3)(C) and 12 C.F.R. § 205.16(e), Defendant, 

therefore, illegally imposed a fee on Plaintiff and all putative class members for their 

respective use of Defendant’s ATMs. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the putative class, requests 

that this Court enter judgment in her favor and against Independent Bank and award the 

following: 

Case 2:09-cv-12639-DPH-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/07/09 Page 4 of 5
 A. Actual and statutory damages as set forth in the EFTA and Regulation E; 

 B. Attorneys’ fees and costs of suit; and 

 C. Such other relief as this Court deems proper. 

Plaintiff Demands A Trial By Jury

 THE CONSUMER ADVOCACY CENTER, P.C. 

 By: /s/ Lance A. Raphael_________________

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 LIBLANG & ASSOCIATES, P.C., 

 By: /s/ Dani K. Liblang__________________ 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Lance A. Raphael 

Stacy M. Bardo 

Allison Krumhorn 

The Consumer Advocacy Center, P.C. 

180 W. Washington St., Ste. 700 

Chicago, IL 60602 

312.782.5808 

Dani K. Liblang (P33713) 

Liblang & Associates, P.C. 

346 Park Street, Suite 200 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

248.540.9270 

Case 2:09-cv-12639-DPH-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/07/09 Page 5 of 5