## Facts

- Fleet, a national bank, ran a nationwide credit-card solicitation campaign in 1999–2000 offering a “fixed” APR (8.5% or lower) on balance transfers and “no annual fees,” stating the rate “starts low and can stay low.”
- Plaintiffs opened Fleet credit-card accounts, transferred balances, and used the cards based on the solicitations.
- In April 2000, Fleet notified cardholders it would increase the “fixed” APRs due to Federal Reserve interest-rate changes; depending on the account, Fleet offered conversion to a variable rate or higher fixed rate, and in some instances imposed annual membership fees.
- A consumer complaint to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) led to an OCC review; the OCC advised the complainant it found no violation of federal rules or regulations.
- Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in Rhode Island Superior Court alleging (1) violations of the Rhode Island Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) and (2) breach of contract, seeking damages and equitable relief.
- A first Superior Court justice denied Fleet’s motion to dismiss on both the DTPA exemption and jurisdictional/amount-in-controversy grounds.
- After transfer to the business calendar, a second Superior Court justice granted Fleet summary judgment on the DTPA claim (statutory exemption) and dismissed the contract claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (amount in controversy).
- Plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Fleet’s credit-card solicitations were exempt from the Rhode Island DTPA because they were “subject to” OCC regulation and related federal consumer credit laws.
2. Whether the Superior Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim due to the statutory amount-in-controversy requirement, despite plaintiffs’ request for equitable relief.
3. Whether the law-of-the-case doctrine barred the second motion justice from revisiting issues previously decided at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment for Fleet on the DTPA claim.
- The court vacated dismissal of the breach of contract claim and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the law-of-the-case doctrine did not bar reconsideration at summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- A DTPA exemption for conduct “subject to” regulation applies where a regulatory agency has authority over the defendant’s conduct; specific, practice-targeted regulations or prior enforcement are not required.
- National banks’ credit-card solicitation and disclosure practices fall within the OCC’s regulatory authority and federal consumer credit frameworks (including Truth in Lending disclosure requirements), bringing such conduct within the DTPA exemption.
- Rhode Island Superior Court jurisdiction is supported when a plaintiff seeks equitable relief in addition to money damages; the equitable claim can supply jurisdiction independent of any monetary threshold.
- Law of the case is a prudential doctrine; interlocutory rulings at the pleading stage do not rigidly bind a later justice deciding summary judgment on a fuller record.

## Conclusion

The court held that the DTPA did not apply to Fleet’s solicitation practices because they were subject to OCC oversight, but it reinstated the breach of contract claim because plaintiffs’ request for equitable relief provided a basis for Superior Court jurisdiction despite any disputed amount in controversy.


Chavers v. Fleet Bank (RI), N.A., 844 A.2d 666 (R.I. 2004)