ORDER

JOHN ANTOON, II, District Judge.

Plaintiff, Angel Asencio ("Plaintiff"), brings this putative class action against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Defendant"). The case is currently before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12) and Plaintiff's Opposition (Doc. 14) thereto. As set forth below, the Complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted, and Defendant's motion thus has merit.

I. Legal Standard

"A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain ... a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). "`[D]etailed factual allegations'" are not required, but "[a] pleading that offers `labels and conclusions' or `a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to `state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955).

II. Background

Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that he is employed in Osceola County, Florida, and that he receives payment of his wages or salary by checks issued by his employer that are drawn on the employer's account with Defendant. (Compl., Doc. 1, ¶¶ 8-10). Plaintiff at one point had an account with Defendant, but the account was closed because Plaintiff lacked the resources to pay Defendant's required account maintenance charges. (Id. ¶¶ 11-12). On July 13, 2012 — after Plaintiff's account with Defendant had been closed — Plaintiff presented a paycheck to Defendant and demanded payment in cash without discount. (Id. ¶¶ 13-14). However, "Defendant discounted $7.50 from the check as a condition for cashing the check." (Id. ¶ 14).

Plaintiff brings one count in his Complaint — a state law claim of unjust enrichment. Plaintiff alleges that he conferred a benefit on Defendant in the form of the $7.50 that Defendant charged for cashing his paycheck and that Defendant was unjustly enriched by the $7.50 at Plaintiff's expense. (Id. at 11).

III. Discussion

Throughout the Complaint, Plaintiff maintains that the $7.50 charge was in violation of section 532.01, Florida Statutes, which provides:

§ 532.01, Fla. Stat. (2010). Plaintiff alleges that because of this statute, Defendant is not permitted to deduct $7.50 from his paycheck when cashing it.

In their filings, the parties focus largely on the issue of federal preemption of this statute, but the Court finds it unnecessary to address the preemption question. Regardless of whether this statute is preempted, Plaintiff's claim is for unjust enrichment — not for violation of this statute; Plaintiff tries to buttress his unjust enrichment allegations by citing this statute, but that attempt fails. Plaintiff has not stated a claim for unjust enrichment, and for that reason Plaintiff's Complaint is due to be dismissed.

In Baptista v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 640 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir.2011), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals noted that "`[t]o state a claim for unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must plead the following elements: 1) the plaintiff has conferred a benefit on the defendant; 2) the defendant has knowledge of the benefit; 3) the defendant has accepted or retained the benefit conferred; and 4) the circumstances are such that it would be inequitable for the defendant to retain the benefit without paying fair value for it.'" Id. at 1198 n. 3 (quoting Della Ratta v. Della Ratta, 927 So.2d 1055, 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)). However, "`[w]hen a defendant has given adequate consideration to someone for the benefit conferred, a claim of unjust enrichment fails.'" Id. (quoting Am. Safety Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Griggs, 959 So.2d 322, 331-32 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)).

Here, as in Baptista, Plaintiff requested that Defendant cash his check, and in return Defendant charged a $7.50 fee. The fee was charged because Defendant conferred a benefit on Plaintiff — payment of the check — and "[b]ecause [Plaintiff] cannot show that [Defendant] failed to give consideration for [his $7.50], [his] claim for unjust enrichment fails as a matter of law." Id. Consequently, Defendant's motion to dismiss is well-taken and must be granted.1

IV. Conclusion

In accordance with the foregoing, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12) filed by Defendant is GRANTED.

2. This case is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to close this file.