by Chuck Sharman

Tackling the pernicious practice of using prepaid debit cards to return funds seized from prisoners upon their release—and then eating up the balance with fees—the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC), the nonprofit publisher of PLN and Criminal Legal News, has filed several lawsuits. Two have already settled for a total of $15.6 million, as PLN reported. [See: PLN, Apr. 2024, p.42; and Apr. 2025, p.43.] On June 25, 2025, a third suit largely survived a motion for summary judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Filed by former PLN staff writer Samuel B. Rutherford III, the suit challenged return of his funds upon his April 2023 release from Washington’s Pierce County Jail on a prepaid debit card issued by the Central Bank of Kansas City (CBKC) under the NUMI brand. Rutherford claimed that he requested his $500.49 in cash but was told that the card was the only way to get his money. After that, he signed an acknowledgment and was handed a card that was already activated, along with a cardholder agreement on which someone else had signed his name. When he attempted to access his funds with the card, he was able to withdraw only $494 from a cash machine; the rest was kept by CBKC to cover fees.

Incensed at the theft of his money, as well as the underlying policy choice by the jail and Pierce County’s then-Sheriff Ed Troyer to license a private firm to rob fees from detainees just when they need their money most, Rutherford filed suit in 2024, accusing CBKC of violating the federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA) and the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA).

As PLN also reported, the district court refused CBKC’s motion to compel Rutherford to arbitrate his claim, in an August 2024 ruling that declared the arbitration clause in the cardholder agreement was unenforceable because he never assented to it. Four months later, a nationwide class was certified for the EFTA claims, consisting of everyone given a NUMI-branded CBKC debit card upon release from prison or jail, between April 2023 and September 2024, who then lost money seized for fees—though their recovery may be limited by any award received under one of the other settlements. A second class was also certified and included everyone given a CBKC debit card upon release from a Washington jail between April 2020 and September 2024, clearing them to pursue separate state-law claims. [See: PLN, Apr. 2025, p.30.]

CBCK filed a motion for summary judgment on the claims under the EFTA, 15 U.S.C. § 1693i and § 1693l-1, as well as the CPA, Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 19.86.010. The district court heard arguments in May 2025 and issued its ruling the following month, finding that there was a genuine issue of material fact—whether Rutherford assented to the card before receiving it—precluding summary judgment for Defendant on the § 1693i claim. The district court, however, agreed with CBKC’s argument that summary judgment was appropriate on the claim under § 1693l-1, which prohibits service fees from being charged on prepaid cards unless they are reloadable.

The cardholder agreement that Rutherford received took pains to announce that his card met this criterion—even though it could be reloaded only once and only by upgrading it to another CBCK card. Nevertheless, the district court refused to call this an attempt to satisfy the requirements of the law in name only and dismissed the claim.

As for the CPA claim, the district court refused to dismiss it because it was “derivative” of the EFTA claims, and since one of those had survived a motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs’ related state-law claims for unjust enrichment and conversion should also survive. See: Rutherford v. Cent. Bank of Kan. City, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119652 (W.D. Wash.).

The parties proceeded with discovery and almost immediately met an impasse over document requests. CBKC refused to provide records generated by NUMI and card processor Central Payments. But Plaintiffs argued that the contractual relationships involved gave CBKC constructive control over the documents, so it could be compelled to produce them. CBKC also objected to providing records related to the service fees that the district court had decided were permissible. But Plaintiffs claimed that they had a live dispute over whether those fees were unfair, so the request should be honored. CBKC also objected to providing documents that were duplicative of those already in possession of class counsel because the same attorneys were also providing representation in one of the other HRDC suits. The district court agreed that this was asking too much of Defendant but otherwise agreed with Plaintiffs and overruled CBCK’s remaining objections on August 21, 2025. See: Rutherford v. Cent. Bank of Kan. City, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162913 (W.D. Wash.).

Attorneys from Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore Hamburger in Seattle represent Rutherford and his fellow class members, which include some 980,000 people, attorney Chris Yountz estimated. The case remains open, and PLN will update further developments as they unfold. See: Rutherford v. Cent. Bank of Kan. City, USDC (W.D. Wash.), Case No. 3:24-cv-05299.  

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal case