Fermin v. Direct Merchants Credit Card Bank N.A.

Fifth Circuit

Fermin v. Direct Merchants Credit Card Bank N.A.

78 F. App'x 932

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 23, 2003

Docket03-50199

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 78 F. App'x 932 (Fermin v. Direct Merchants Credit Card Bank N.A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fermin v. Direct Merchants Credit Card Bank N.A., 78 F. App'x 932 (5th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM. *

Frederick C. Fermin appeals the district court’s grant of Direct Merchants’ motion for summary judgment. Fermin argues that the interest rate on the credit card issued to him by Direct Merchants was usurious under Texas, federal, and Arizona law. As a national bank located in Arizona, Direct Merchants may charge interest at the rate allowed by Arizona law. 12 U.S.C. § 85; Marquette Nat'l Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Serv. Corp., 439 U.S. 299, 308, 99 S.Ct. 540, 58 L.Ed.2d 534 (1978). Fermin does not dispute that the interest charged him was set by contract via the Cardholder’s Agreement and its changes or that the credit limit exceeded $10,000. Because the interest rate charged was established by contract, it is the interest allowed by Arizona law and is not greater than that allowed by Arizona law. See Ariz.Rbv.Stat. §§ 44-1201, 44-1205(C). Thus, the interest rate charged does not violate federal or Arizona law. Arizona Revised Statute §§ 44-1205(D) and 6-601 are inapplicable.

Fermin asserts that the Account Benefit Plan (“the Plan”), which would forgive the credit card account balance if he died, was insurance which Direct Merchants was not licensed to sell in Texas. Fermin asserts erroneously that the district court erred by not adjudicating his claim under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”). Although he asserts that the Plan was insur *933 anee under 15 U.S.C. § 6712(e) of the GLBA, he does not argue that Texas has regulated as insurance contracts such as the Plan since January 1, 1999. Fermin’s conclusional assertions do not show any error in the district court’s determination that the Plan is not insurance under the GLBA.

Direct Merchants’ motion to strike portions of Fermin’s reply brief is DENIED as unnecessary. See Taita Chem. Co. v. Westlake Styrene Corp., 246 F.3d 377, 384 n. 9 (5th Cir.2001).

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM. *

Frederick C. Fermin appeals the district court’s grant of Direct Merchants’ motion for summary judgment. Fermin argues that the interest rate on the credit card issued to him by Direct Merchants was usurious under Texas, federal, and Arizona law. As a national bank located in Arizona, Direct Merchants may charge interest at the rate allowed by Arizona law. 12 U.S.C. § 85; Marquette Nat'l Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Serv. Corp., 439 U.S. 299, 308, 99 S.Ct. 540, 58 L.Ed.2d 534 (1978). Fermin does not dispute that the interest charged him was set by contract via the Cardholder’s Agreement and its changes or that the credit limit exceeded $10,000. Because the interest rate charged was established by contract, it is the interest allowed by Arizona law and is not greater than that allowed by Arizona law. See Ariz.Rbv.Stat. §§ 44-1201, 44-1205(C). Thus, the interest rate charged does not violate federal or Arizona law. Arizona Revised Statute §§ 44-1205(D) and 6-601 are inapplicable.

Fermin asserts that the Account Benefit Plan (“the Plan”), which would forgive the credit card account balance if he died, was insurance which Direct Merchants was not licensed to sell in Texas. Fermin asserts erroneously that the district court erred by not adjudicating his claim under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”). Although he asserts that the Plan was insur *933 anee under 15 U.S.C. § 6712(e) of the GLBA, he does not argue that Texas has regulated as insurance contracts such as the Plan since January 1, 1999. Fermin’s conclusional assertions do not show any error in the district court’s determination that the Plan is not insurance under the GLBA.

Direct Merchants’ motion to strike portions of Fermin’s reply brief is DENIED as unnecessary. See Taita Chem. Co. v. Westlake Styrene Corp., 246 F.3d 377, 384 n. 9 (5th Cir.2001).

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 F. App'x 932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fermin-v-direct-merchants-credit-card-bank-na-ca5-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack