
    Solomon AZOSE and Natalie Azose, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee, Washington Mutual Bank, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Chase Manhattan Banking Corp., Defendants.
    No. 10-0708-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 22, 2011.
    Jonathan A. Dachs, Dachs, Corker, Sauer & Dachs, LLP (Harry I. Katz, P.C., on the brief), Mineóla, NY and Fresh Meadows, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appeliants.
    Alan E. Schoenfeld (Christopher R. Lip-sett, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP, on the brief), New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.
    PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

On December 22, 2008, plaintiffs-appellants Solomon and Natalie Azose (“plaintiffs”) filed an amended class action complaint against defendant-appellee J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“defendant”). The amended complaint alleged principally: (1) defendant participated in a shared network arrangement by which Washington Mutual Bank, where plaintiffs were account holders, paid a fee to defendant when plaintiffs used one of defendant’s automated teller machines (“ATMs”) to conduct balance inquiry transactions; (2) Washington Mutual, in turn, imposed a fee on plaintiffs for their use of defendant’s ATMs; and (3) defendant did not properly disclose this fee arrangement on-screen or on-site of the ATM machine. Plaintiffs claim, therefore, that defendant violated § 1693b(d) of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (“EFTA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1693 et seq., which requires that ATM operators make certain disclosures for fees they impose on customers. Plaintiffs further claim that defendant violated 12 C.F.R. § 205 (“Regulation E”), a related implementing regulation.

On July 9, 2009, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). On January 26, 2010, 2010 WL 376632, the District Court granted the motion. This appeal followed. We assume the parties familiarity with the remaining factual and procedural history of the case.

We review a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss de novo, accepting as true all well-pleaded factual allegations in the amended complaint and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Goldstein v. Pataki, 516 F.3d 50, 56 (2d Cir.2008). On appeal, plaintiffs argue that “although [defendant] is not collecting [a] fee directly from the customer, it does collect the fee from the [customer]'s own bank, which passes it on to the customer.” App.’s Br. at 10 (emphasis in original). Under plaintiffs’ theory, defendant is thereby required, pursuant to the EFTA and to Regulation E, to advise the customer of this fee when the customer uses the machine.

Plaintiffs’ claims are without merit. As the District Court explained in its carefully considered Memorandum & Order, plaintiffs never allege that defendant imposed a fee on them. See Azose v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 07-cv-4995, 2010 WL 376632, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2010). [A 267] Moreover, by the plain terms of EFTA and Regulation E, defendant has no obligation to disclose at its ATM any fees that it may have imposed on Washington Mutual in the course of processing plaintiffs’ transactions. Id. at *8. Accordingly, the complaint was properly dismissed.

CONCLUSION

We have considered all of plaintiffs’ arguments and find them unavailing. We AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court for substantially the reasons stated in its Memorandum & Order of January 26, 2010, Azose v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 07-cv-4995, 2010 WL 376632.  