Motion to dismiss; The Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA); Statute of limitations; 15 USC § 1693m(g); Applicability of the discovery rule; Rotkiske v Klemm; The continuing-violation doctrine; Tobey v Chibucos (7th Cir); The National Automated Clearing House Association (NACHA) rules; Whether plaintiff had a viable NACHA claim because of her deposit account agreement with a bank; Whether the Bank Secrecy Act creates an express private right of action to enforce the Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) filing requirement; Supplemental jurisdiction

The court held that plaintiff-Koeberer’s EFTA claim against defendant-Chase Bank was barred by the one-year statute of limitations, and that she did not plead a viable NACHA claim. Further, the “Bank Secrecy Act does not create an express private right of action for private litigants to enforce the SAR filing requirement[,]” and the district court did not err in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claims after dismissing all her federal claims. Koeberer is the beneficiary of a testamentary trust. In this case, she sued, among others, the bank handling the trust’s financial assets, Chase. The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. On appeal, the court first upheld the dismissal of her claim “that Chase Bank violated the Bank Secrecy Act by failing to flag suspicious activities on her trust account.” It noted that “Congress knew how to create a private action in the Bank Secrecy Act” as it created one for whistleblowers. It did not have to decide whether the “Act gives rise to an implied private right of action because Koeberer” did not raise this argument. The court next held that her EFTA claim was untimely. A consumer must file an EFTA claim within one year of the date of the violation. She did not do so. While she relied on the discovery rule and the continuing-violations doctrine to toll the running of the statute of limitations, the court concluded that they did not. First, it held that the “discovery rule does not apply to the EFTA’s limitations period.” Second, the continuing-violation “doctrine does not resurrect an otherwise untimely claim where, as here, ‘a discrete incident of unlawful conduct gives rise to continuing injuries because the plaintiff can bring a single suit based on an estimation of total injuries.’” As to her NACHA claim, which she based on her deposit account agreement with Chase, the court found that she could not “enforce the rules because the agreement does not incorporate them, nor does [it] identify her as an intended beneficiary of the NACHA rules.” Affirmed.