Oparaji v. Municipal Credit Union

Background

Maurice Oparaji, proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that Municipal Credit Union charged his account 69 separate overdraft fees in May 2016, totaling $2,070, without his affirmative consent. He asserted claims under New York law, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and its implementing Regulation E, the Consumer Financial Protection Act, and the Declaratory Judgment Act. He sought damages and a declaration requiring the credit union to notify its customers about overdraft services and the “opt-in” rule.

The credit union moved for judgment on the pleadings or, alternatively, dismissal for failure to state a claim. A magistrate judge recommended granting the motion. Oparaji objected, and he also filed a motion for partial summary judgment under Rule 56, which asks the court to enter judgment when there is no genuine dispute of material fact.

Court’s analysis

The court adopted the recommendation regarding Oparaji’s Consumer Financial Protection Act claims. It held that the Act does not provide a private right of action—that is, it does not authorize an individual to bring a lawsuit directly under those provisions. The court therefore dismissed those claims for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

The court also dismissed the Electronic Fund Transfer Act claim for failure to state a claim. Regulation E’s overdraft “opt-in” rule applies to overdraft fees for automated-teller-machine and one-time debit-card transactions. The account summary attached to Oparaji’s complaint identified each challenged fee as an “ACH NSF FEE,” referring to an automated-clearinghouse nonsufficient-funds fee. The court concluded that the rule does not apply to those transactions.

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority over related state-law claims, after dismissing the federal claims. It therefore dismissed Oparaji’s remaining state-law breach-of-contract claim without prejudice. The court did not decide the alternative recommendations concerning whether that claim was moot or failed for other reasons. The opinion notes that the credit union had presented evidence that it refunded the fees, but the court did not resolve the state-law claim on that basis.

The court also adopted the recommendation to dismiss the Declaratory Judgment Act claim. It explained that the Act does not create an independent cause of action and that Oparaji had no remaining claim supporting the requested declaration. It further stated that any declaration would concern only the legal rights of the party seeking it, rather than require notice to all of the credit union’s customers.

Disposition

The court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in part and declined to adopt it in part. It dismissed with prejudice Oparaji’s Consumer Financial Protection Act, Electronic Fund Transfer Act, and Declaratory Judgment Act claims. It dismissed without prejudice the remaining state-law claim because it declined supplemental jurisdiction. The court granted the credit union’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), denied Oparaji’s motion for partial summary judgment as moot, closed the case, and directed that a copy of the opinion be mailed to Oparaji.