Beneficial National Bank v. Anderson
The plaintiffs, who as customers of H&R Block had taken out tax refund anticipation loans from Beneficial National Bank, brought suit in state court against H&R Block, Beneficial National Bank, and Beneficial Tax Masters, alleging usury violations along with other state-law claims. The defendants removed the case to federal court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction.The defendants argued that since the National Bank Act (NBA) provides the exclusive remedy for claims alleging excessive interest against national banks, the plaintiffs' state-law usury claims should be re-characterized as federal claims under the doctrine of complete preemption. The district court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to remand, holding that removal was proper because federal question jurisdiction existed based on complete preemption. The court of appeals reversed, holding that sections 85 and 86 of the NBA do not accomplish complete preemption of state law usury claims.
Question Presented:
Whether a usury claim against a national bank, even if ostensibly brought under state law, necessarily arises under section 30 of the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. ยงยง 85-86, so as to permit a
federal court to exercise removal jurisdiction under the doctrine of complete preemption.
