Rose v. Chase Bank USA, N.A.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that \no amount of discovery\ would change the court's pre-emption ruling, which was based on congressional intent
• finding that federal law preempts disclosure obligations of California statute that required credit card issuers to include specific language with preprinted checks or drafts
• affirming Rule 12 dismissal of California’s Unfair Competition Law claims based on NBA preemption
• “[T]he usual presumption against federal preemption of state law is inapplicable to federal banking regulation.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)
• “[N]o amount of discovery would change the central holding that Congress intended for the [federal banking statute] to preempt [this] state restriction[] on national banks . . . .”
• 'Regardless of the nature of the state law claim alleged . . . , the proper inquiry is whether the 'legal duty that is the predicate of' Plaintiffs' state law claim falls within the preemptive power of the NBA or regulations promulgated thereunder.'

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).