## Facts

- Patricia Gonzales Lopez, a Colombian resident and nonresident alien, maintained a checking account at First Union National Bank of Florida, a participant in the FedWire funds transfer system.
- On September 2, 1993 and November 30, 1993, First Union received wire transfers for credit to Lopez’s account and maintained the transfers’ contents in electronic storage.
- Lopez alleged that on each of those dates First Union gave federal law enforcement access to the contents of the electronic transfers based solely on federal agents’ verbal instructions, without subpoena, warrant, or other formal legal process.
- On February 3, 1994, a magistrate judge issued a seizure warrant directing First Union to freeze Lopez’s account and conduct an inventory.
- Lopez alleged that, pursuant to the warrant, First Union again provided federal authorities access to the electronically stored wire-transfer contents.
- In a related forfeiture proceeding, more than $100,000 from Lopez’s account was forfeited to the United States by stipulation.
- Lopez sued First Union for damages, alleging the disclosures violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and the Right to Financial Privacy Act (RFPA).
- The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), holding First Union was immune under the Annunzio–Wylie Anti–Money Laundering Act safe harbor, 31 U.S.C. § 5318(g)(3).

## Issues

1. Whether 31 U.S.C. § 5318(g)(3) categorically immunizes a bank from civil liability for disclosing electronically stored wire-transfer contents and related account information to federal law enforcement.
2. Whether safe-harbor immunity can be resolved on the pleadings when the complaint alleges disclosures made solely on verbal law-enforcement instructions, without a good-faith basis to report a possible violation of law, and without operative regulatory or legal authorization.
3. Whether dismissal of ECPA and RFPA claims at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage was improper where the complaint plausibly alleged conduct outside § 5318(g)(3)’s protection.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit reversed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and remanded.
- Accepting the complaint’s allegations as true, the court held it was premature to conclude that § 5318(g)(3) immunity barred the action as a matter of law.
- The court determined that the pleadings raised factual and legal questions about whether the alleged disclosures were the type protected by the safe harbor and whether statutory predicates for immunity were satisfied.

## Legal Principles

- On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, courts must accept the complaint’s well-pleaded factual allegations as true and may not resolve fact-dependent defenses by assuming facts favorable to the defendant.
- The safe harbor in 31 U.S.C. § 5318(g)(3) is not an automatic, categorical shield for any bank disclosure to law enforcement; its application depends on the nature of the disclosure and the statutory predicates for protection.
- When a plaintiff plausibly alleges that a bank disclosed customer information outside the scope of protected reporting—such as by voluntary disclosure of detailed transaction contents in electronic storage based solely on verbal requests—dismissal on § 5318(g)(3) immunity grounds may be improper at the pleading stage.
- ECPA and RFPA claims are not displaced at the pleading stage merely because the defendant invokes § 5318(g)(3); whether immunity applies may require factual development concerning authorization, purpose, and the character of the information disclosed.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit held that, given the complaint’s allegations of voluntary disclosures of electronically stored wire-transfer contents to federal agents based only on verbal instructions, the district court erred in dismissing Lopez’s ECPA and RFPA claims on § 5318(g)(3) safe-harbor immunity at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, and it remanded for further proceedings.


Lopez v. First Union Nat’l Bank of Fla., 129 F.3d 1186 (11th Cir. 1997)