Home / digital federal credit union scam / UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF …

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF … - digital federal credit union scam

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF …-digital federal credit union scam

Case 4:18-cv-11262-TSH Document 1 Filed 06/15/18 Page 1 of 25
BRANDI SALLS, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated,
Case No.:
DOES 1 through 100, CLASS ACTION
Plaintiff Brandi Salls ("Plaintiff"), by her attorneys, hereby brings this class and
representative action against Digital Federal Credit Union and DOES 1 through 100 (collectively
"DFCU" or "Defendant").
1. All allegations herein are based upon information and belief except those
allegations which pertain to Plaintiff or her counsel. Allegations pertaining to Plaintiff or her
counsel are based upon, inter alia, Plaintiff or her counsel's personal knowledge, as well as
Plaintiff or her counsel's own investigation. Furthermore, each allegation alleged herein either
has evidentiary support or is likely to have evidentiary support, after a reasonable opportunity for
additional investigation or discovery.
2. This is a class and representative action brought by Plaintiff to assert claims in her
own right, and in her capacity as the class representative of all others persons similarly situated,
and in her capacity as a private attorney general on behalf of the members of the general public.
DFCU wrongfully charged Plaintiff and the class member overdraft fees.
3. This class action seeks monetary damages, restitution, and injunctive relief due to
Case 4:18-cv-11262-TSH Document 1 Filed 06/15/18 Page 2 of 25
DFCU's policy and practice of assessing an overdraft fee on transactions when there was enough
money in the checking account to cover (pay for) the transactions presented for payment. The
charging for such overdraft fees breaches DFCU's contract with its customers, who include
Plaintiff and the members of the Class.
4. The charging for such overdraft fees also violates federal law. Because DFCU
failed to describe its actual overdraft service in its Opt-In Contract (because the language in its
Opt-In Contract fails to describe the actual method by which ECU calculates its overdraft fees,
instead describing a method under which overdrafts only result when there is not enough money
in the account to pay for a transaction), Regulation E (12 C.F.R. ??1005.17 et seq.) of the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act (15 U.S.C.A. ?? 1693 et seq.) prohibited DFCU from assessing
overdraft fees for automated teller machine (ATM) and non-recurring debit card transactions (12
C.F.R. ?1005.17(b)(1)(i)), but DFCU did so anyway.
5. Plaintiff is a resident of Paxton, Massachusetts, and was a member of DFCU at all
times relevant to the class action allegations.
6. Based on information and belief, Defendant DFCU is a federally chartered credit
union with its headquarters located in Marlborough, Massachusetts, and branch offices located in
both Massachusetts and New Hampshire. DFCU is a "financial institution" within the meaning
of Regulation E (12 C.F.R. ? 1005.2(i)).
7. Without limitation, defendants Does 1 through 100, include agents, partners, joint
ventures, subsidiaries and/or affiliates of DFCU and, upon information and belief, also own
and/or operate DFCU branch locations. Each of Defendants Does 1 through 100 is a "financial
institution" within the meaning of Regulation E (12 C.F.R. ? 1005.2(i)). As used herein, where
appropriate, the term "DFCU" is also inclusive of Defendants Does 1 through 100.
8. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names of defendants Does 1 through 100.
Defendants Does 1 through 100 are thus sued by fictitious names, and the pleadings will be
amended as necessary to obtain relief against defendants Does 1 through 100 when the true
Case 4:18-cv-11262-TSH Document 1 Filed 06/15/18 Page 3 of 25
names are ascertained, or as permitted by law or by the Court.
9. There exists, and at all times herein mentioned existed, a unity of interest and
ownership between the named defendants (including Does) such that any corporate individuality
and separateness between the named defendants has ceased, and that the named defendants are
alter egos in that the named defendants effectively operate as a single enterprise, or are mere
instrumentalities of one another.
10. At all material times herein, each defendant was the agent, servant, co-conspirator
and/or employer of each of the remaining defendants, acted within the purpose, scope, and
course of said agency, service, conspiracy and/or employment and with the express and/or
implied knowledge, permission, and consent of the remaining defendants, and ratified and
approved the acts of the other defendants. However, each of these allegations are deemed
alternative theories whenever not doing so would result in a contradiction with the other
11. Whenever reference is made in this Complaint to any act, deed, or conduct of
Defendant, the allegation means that Defendant engaged in the act, deed, or conduct by or
through one or more of its officers, directors, agents, employees, or representatives who was
actively engaged in the management, direction, control, or transaction of Defendant's ordinary
business and affairs.
12. As to the conduct alleged herein, each act was authorized ratified or directed by
Defendant's officers, directors, or managing agents.
13. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ?
1332(d) because: (1) the claims of plaintiffs aggregated together exceed $5,000,000, and (2)
some putative class members are residents of different states than Defendant. This Court also
has subject matter jurisdiction under28 U.S.C. ? 1331.
14. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ? 1391(b)(1) because
Defendant is a resident of this District and a substantial part of the events and/or omissions