Case Name: Heather Andrews MCGEE, Laketha D. Wilson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-01-18
Citations: 674 F. App'x 958
Docket Number: No. 15-13855 Non-Argument Calendar
Parties: Heather Andrews MCGEE, Laketha D. Wilson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before MARCUS and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 674
Pages: 958–959

Head Matter:
Heather Andrews MCGEE, Laketha D. Wilson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-13855 Non-Argument Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Filed (January 18, 2017)
Bryan Scott Gowdy, Creed & Gowdy, Jacksonville, FL, John R. Hargrove, Har-grove Pierson & Brown PA, Boca Raton, FL, Kristin D. Figueroa-Contreras, Negri Torres & Figueroa-Contreras, Miami, FL, Michael Aaron Hersh, Cristina Maria Pier-son, John J. Uustal, Kelley Uustal, PLC, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Osvaldo A. Raponi, Rapbni & Urtubey Abogados, Caba, Bue-nos Aires, Argentine, for Plaintiffs-Appellants
Matthew W. Close, O’Melveny & Myers, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Brian D. Boyle, Jonathan D. Hacker, O’Melveny & Myers, LLP, Washington, DC, Andrew Kemp-Gerstel, Junaid Savani, Liebler Gonzalez & Portuondo, Miami, FL, Elizabeth Lemond McKeen, Danielle Oakley, O’Melveny & Myers, LLP, Newport Beach, CA
Before MARCUS and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, District Judge.
Honorable Brian J. Davis, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The issue in this appeal is whether the extended charge that Bank of America assesses on its deposit accounts constitutes "interest" for purposes of the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. § 85-86. The plaintiffs concede that, under our decision in Video Trax, Inc. v. Nationsbank, N.A., 205 F.3d 1358 (11th Cir. 2000), the extended charge is not interest. The plaintiffs brought this appeal because they want to petition the en banc Court to overrule Video Tmx, a petition they are free to file within 21 days of our opinion, see 11th Cir. R. 35-2. The plaintiffs also argue that the district court should have allowed them to proceed to discovery before dismissing their complaint, but that argument fails because their complaint fails to state a claim as a matter of law.
We AFFIRM the dismissal of the complaint. We DENY AS MOOT the appellants' motion to dismiss the appeal.