In 2007 fraudulent checks in the amount of $181,577 were cashed against the accounts of seven Citizens Bank customers in New York, Pennsylvania, and Delaware. Fraud investigator Swoyer discovered that Tolliver’s employee number was the only one used to access all of the accounts; only Tolliver and one assistant manager worked on all of the days on which the accounts were accessed.. Swoyer, Postal Inspector Busch, and a Secret Service agent interviewed Tolliver. At trial, Swoyer testified that he reviewed Tolliver’s entire logbook with her and that Tolliver told him that she had not given her password to anyone and that she always logged off her computer when she walked away from a terminal. Seven of Tolliver’s former co-workers testified they never knew Tolliver’s password or saw it written down. A jury convicted Tolliver of bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1344, aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C. 1028A(a), and unauthorized use of a computer, 18 U.S.C. 1030. The court imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment and restitution. The Third Circuit affirmed. Tolliver, represented by newly appointed counsel, filed a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, claiming that her trial counsel was ineffective by failure to investigate. The district court granted her motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Third Circuit vacated. View "United States v. Tolliver" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a public records request under the Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA) seeking bank records the State had legally seized during a criminal investigation. The district court denied the request, concluding that article I, section 14 of the Utah Constitution provides a broad right of privacy that prevented the State from disclosing the records. The district court also denied Plaintiff access to a summary of the bank records (the Quicken Summary) and an investigator’s handwritten notes (the Post-it Note), concluding that both documents were protected attorney work product. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) there can be no violation of section 14 when the government obtains information through a valid warrant or subpoena, and therefore, the bank records were not exempted from GRAMA’s public disclosure requirements; and (2) the district court correctly classified the Quicken Summary and the Post-it Note as attorney work product, but, because the State terminated its investigation years ago, the interests favoring protection were not as compelling as those favoring disclosure. View "Schroeder v. Utah Attorney General’s Office" on Justia Law

Bell alleged that her former employer, PNC Bank, failed to pay her overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201, and the Illinois Minimum Wage and Wage Payment and Collection Acts, and that the failure was not an isolated incident, but rather part of a PNC policy or practice that affected other employees. Bell claimed that she was evaluated, in part, based on how many new accounts she brought into the bank, and in order to generate new accounts she needed to spend “significant” time outside of her regular work hours visiting prospective clients. Some of the assignments to visit prospective clients came from a PNC vice president who did not work at the Bell’ branch. According to Bell, when she submitted time cards reflecting overtime work, her branch manager and a PNC regional manager told her that “PNC would not permit... overtime for the branch,” and “PNC expected its employees to handle their outside-the-branch work on their own time, without reporting any extra hours that they worked.” The Seventh Circuit affirmed certification of a class of plaintiffs. Many issues remain unanswered and the district court was correct to conclude that a class action would be an appropriate and efficient pathway to resolution. View "Bell v. PNC Bank" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, owner of Fiscal Agency Agreement (FAA) bonds that were not restructured, filed suit against BCRA seeking to recover their unpaid principal and interest. The district court held that the FAA's express waiver of sovereign immunity, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(1), also waived BCRA's immunity because BCRA is Argentina’s “alter ego.” The district court further held that BCRA’s use of its account with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) constituted “commercial activity” in the United States, which waived BCRA’s sovereign immunity under 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(2). The court concluded that it has jurisdiction over the appeal under the collateral-order doctrine; Argentina’s sovereign‐immunity waiver in the FAA may not be imputed to also waive BCRA’s independent sovereign immunity; and BCRA’s use of its FRBNY account is too incidental to the gravamen of plaintiffs’ claim to serve as the basis for waiving BCRA’s sovereign immunity under the commercial‐activity exception to the FSIA. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint. View "EM Ltd. v. Banco Central de la Republica Argentina" on Justia Law

In 2005, Mutual Bank of Harvey, Illinois, made loans to the defendants, evidenced by promissory notes. As security the defendants executed mortgages. Mortgage I applies to four properties in Appleton, Menasha, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Mortgage II applies to a property in Grand Chute. Mortgage III applies to seven Milwaukee properties. The notes went into default in 2008. In 2009, regulators closed Mutual Bank. The Federal Insurance Deposit Corporation (FDIC) was appointed receiver. Ultimately UCB became the owner and holder of the notes and mortgages on the Wisconsin properties. In 2011, UCB commenced mortgage foreclosure. Defendants argued that under the Illinois “single refiling” rule, 735 ILCS 5/13-217, UCB was barred from enforcing the promissory notes underlying the mortgages since UCB had twice formerly filed an action against the defendants to recover on the notes and voluntarily dismissed each of these prior actions. The Seventh Circuit affirmed that Mortgage I, was governed by Illinois law and that UCB was precluded from foreclosing on Mortgage I. The defendants did not appeal a holding that Wisconsin law applied to Mortgages II and III and that Wisconsin law permitted UCB to foreclose. View "United Central Bank v. KMWC 845, LLC" on Justia Law

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. filed a post-judgment motion to intervene in this foreclosure action to protect its interest as assignee of a mortgage on the real estate of Deborah Walton and Margaret Walton. JPMorgan filed its motion three years after a final judgment foreclosing plaintiff Claybridge Homeowners Association’s judgment lien and six years after the suit began. The trial court denied the motion to intervene as untimely. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the motion to intervene was untimely because Plaintiff’s lis pendens notice, filed the day the suit began, provided constructive notice of Plaintiff’s foreclosure action; and (2) the notice was valid because it was based on Plaintiff’s enforceable, unrecorded judgment lien and because Plaintiff’s foreclosure action was not a personal claim but an in rem real estate action to enforce a judgment lien. View "JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Claybridge Homeowners Ass’n" on Justia Law

Tribeca sued after First American refunded a $1 million deposit to a real estate investor out of an escrow account that Tribeca had opened. Tribeca claimed it was entitled to the deposit and asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and negligence. The trial judge and court of appeal ruled in favor of First American. The escrow instructions did not require that the funds, which had been deposited by a third party, be subject to Tribeca’s directions. First American’s expert witness testified that its conduct fell within the standard of care and that returning the money to the depositor was proper. The court credited the testimony of that expert above the testimony of the Tribeca expert. View "Tribeca Co. v. First American Title Ins." on Justia Law

Appellants Heang Ouch and Morcos Hanna sought to represent a putative class of borrowers who had not kept up with their mortgage loan payments. The borrowers’ loan servicers made a number of contractually-mandated advances (dubbed “delinquency advances”) of funds to the holders of the notes. The loan servicers also, as agents of the holders of the notes, initiated foreclosure proceedings against the borrowers. The borrowers filed separate suits arguing that, despite their non-payment, the servicers’ delinquency advances constituted payments on the borrowers’ debts, that their mortgages were not in default and, accordingly, that the mortgage-holders lacked the power to foreclose. The district court concluded that the services’ payments were not made “on behalf of” the borrowers. The First Circuit consolidated Ouch’s and Hanna’s appeals and affirmed the district court’s rulings denying an amendment to Ouch’s complaint and dismissing Hanna’s complaint with prejudice, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that the payments were not made “on behalf of” the borrowers. View "Ouch v. Fed. Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated individuals, alleging that Capital One violated certain provisions of the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692–1692p, by attempting to collect on defaulted or delinquent credit card accounts that Capital One had acquired from HSBC. The district court dismissed plaintiff's amended complaint. The court concluded that it need look no further than the statutory text to conclude that, under the plain language of the FDCPA, a bank (or any person or entity) does not qualify as a “debt collector” where the bank does not regularly collect or attempt to collect on debts “owed or due another” and where “the collection of any debts” is not “the principal purpose” of the bank’s business, even where the consumer’s debt was in default at the time the bank acquired it. In this case, the amended complaint’s factual matter establishes that Capital One’s collection efforts in this case related only to debts owed to it and that debt collection is only some part of, and not the principal purpose of, Capital One’s business. Therefore, Capital One's activity, as alleged by plaintiff, is not the activity of a “debt collector” under the FDCPA, and plaintiff cannot state a claim under the Act. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Davidson v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A." on Justia Law

In the underlying putative class action, counsel for the named plaintiffs obtained a collection of records owned by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Chase). Plaintiffs sought to rely on the documents to pursue claims sounding in fraud, deceit, and conversion against Chase. A dispute arose as to whether portions of the Chase records were shielded from discovery and litigation under a provision of Bank Secrecy Act and related regulations. A magistrate judge reviewed all of the disputed documents in camera and concluded that the majority of the documents were not shielded by statute or regulation. Chase then initiated this mandamus proceeding, asking the First Circuit to intervene by declaring that the Act and related regulations shielded an additional fifty-five pages of Chase records from production or use in the putative class action. The First Circuit denied the petition for writ of mandamus, holding that, even assuming that the Act and regulations apply, the documents at dispute would not be shielded from discovery or use in litigation. View "In re JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A." on Justia Law