January 2023

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        

« Miscellany from the blog pile | Main | New Second Circuit CAFA decision: DiTolla v. Doral Dental »

Tuesday, November 21, 2006



No one ever said you could get by as a plaintiff's class action attorney without having some intestinal fortitude. But, wow, to lose a billion dollar verdict with not much more than a stroke of a pen, that is something.

Kimberly A. Kralowec

I had a similar reaction. For me as a plaintiffs' attorney, this decision was very hard to read. Just imagine the work that went into the case. On the other hand, the bank and its lawyers must have heaved a huge sigh of relief.

george senda

I am very interested in this case, as I am one of those who have had thousands of dollars taken out of my bank account for these nsf fees.

The case has been accepted for review by the state supreme court, but given the amount of money involved, perhaps the money was the consideration by the appeals court and not in doing what is right.

the law & the courts are not always moral, proper or ethical.

I would like to know specifically WHAT federal regulation forbids banks from touching the funds of those on ssi ? I find it shameful that the US government sided with BofA in this matter.

See my blog for MY comments on this matter...

george senda

I found it ironic that on the day this decision was announced, directly under the story of the decision in the SF Chronicle, was an article announcing that Bank of America bought a bank for $3 billion.

I guess BofA figured they could afford to spend the money...

I wondder when the Supreme Court is going to hear this case. I would like to be in the court when they do.

ed wizrd

It is indeed sad that the US government has sided with BofA in this case. BofA knowingly violated California law. It could have refused direct SSI deposits for those customers, proposed repayment plans in case of overdrafts, or have required those customers to get overdraft protection. Instead, they decide to break the law. Then you get the federal government trying to defend them and making claims that banks will not be able to function smoothly or that banks may have to discontinue the direct deposit service for such checks. Ok, then let customers go to a different bank. So what? Because federal law does not prohibit such a practice does not mean it allows it, just like so many other unregulated or to be regulated unfair and deceptive practices. But in this case BofA violated a clear state law which does not contradict any federal law. The Feds are in a power play, pure and simple, and inept at that. There is no profound reasoning except a wish to back up a financial institution which time and time again has gone out of bounds. And for what? Look at the subprime mortgage fiasco--"government backed." This case should be overturned back to the sound reasoning that upheld it in the first place. Pray that the wise protections that states provide to citizens stay because federal agencies have failed to provide these protections.

The comments to this entry are closed.

2023 Supreme Court Calendar



  • Nothing in this blog constitutes legal advice or a solicitation for business. If you need legal advice, consult an attorney in your jurisdiction. To read this blog's complete disclaimer, click here.

  • The UCL Practitioner
    © 2003-2022
    by Kimberly A. Kralowec
    All rights reserved.

  • Header design by Webmotion
    Photos by Jack Gescheidt
    Powered by TypePad

  • StatCounter