Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

White v. U.S. Bank

United States District Court, D. New Jersey, Camden Vicinage

May 11, 2017

U.S. BANK, et al., Defendants.

          Kenneth White FCI Fort Dix Inmate Mail/Parcels Pro Se Plaintiff.

          Daniel Ginzburg, Esq. The Ginzburg Law Firm, P.C. Attorney for Defendants.



         This matter is before the Court upon a motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff, appearing pro se [ECF No. 23], and a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) and Richard K. Davies (collectively the “Defendants”). For the within reasons, Defendants' motion will be granted, and Plaintiff's motion will be denied. All other remaining motions are dismissed as moot or without merit.

         On or about July 20, 2016, Plaintiff, pro se, filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Burlington County. The Complaint alleged that on August 20, 2009, Defendants “took, purloined, confiscated, from Kenneth White (d.b.a Urban Investment Group, Inc.) out of separate business accounts $50, 104.94 (savings account) and the sum of $183, 130.13 (business checking account) without any legal or personal authorization to do so.” (Notice of Removal Ex. 1 (“Compl.”) at 3 [ECF No. 1-1].) Plaintiff did not allege separate causes of action, but alleged generally that he was “entitled under the Constitutions of New Jersey, Minnesota, and the United States to be secure in his person, houses, papers and effects. This right was violated by U.S. Bank when it took Mr. White's effects (money), and also state and federal laws.” Id.

         On September 23, 2016, Defendants removed the action to this Court under diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff was alleged to be a citizen of the State of Ohio, although he is presently incarcerated at FCI Fort Dix, New Jersey serving a lengthy sentence with a projected release date in 2029.[1]

         The following facts are taken from Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts pursuant to L.Civ.R. 56.1(a) (“DSUMF”). Plaintiff has not disputed these facts, although he has generally denied Defendants' defenses. In ruling on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court construes all inferences, liberally in favor of Plaintiff, the non-moving party. Meyer v. Riegel Prods. Corp., 720 F.2d 303, 307 n.2 (3d Cir. 1983).

         On October 2, 2008, Plaintiff opened a U.S. Bank account, with an account number ending in 6154 (the “6154 Account”). The account was in the name of Urban Investment Group Inc. (“Urban Investment”). Plaintiff made himself a joint owner of that account. DSUMF ¶ 2 [ECF No. 17-1]. On November 7, 2008, Plaintiff opened another U.S. Bank account, account number ending in 5258 (the “5258 Account”) and also in the name of Urban Investment. Plaintiff made himself a joint owner of that account. Id. ¶ 3.

         On July 13, 2009, Plaintiff deposited a check in the amount of $93, 376.61, drawn on the account of the United States Treasury Department, into the 5258 Account. The payee on the check was Conan Thompson, a non-party, who endorsed the check to Urban Investment and sent a notarized letter to U.S. Bank authorizing Plaintiff to deposit the check as part of a purported real estate transaction. Id. ¶ 4. Four days later, on July 17, 2009, a wire transfer in the amount of $205, 000 came into the 5258 Account. The wire transfer was from the Bank of America, N.A. account of Bags by Rich, which is a non-party entity owned by Richard Dukes, who is also a non-party. Id. ¶ 5. These large deposits raised concerns within U.S. Bank, which contacted Bank of America. In turn, Bank of America informed U.S. Bank that the Bags by Rich account had recently been funded by several large U.S. Government tax refund checks, each made out to Ohio residents. Id. ¶ 6.

         On July 21, 2009, U.S. Bank contacted the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), which confirmed that the $93, 376.61 check was a legitimate check from the U.S. Treasury Department, but the IRS had determined that it was part of a series of checks issued as a result of false tax returns being filed by or on behalf of various individuals. This was also true of the money wired into U.S. Bank, as the IRS confirmed that each of the checks negotiated through the Bags by Rich account at Bank of America was the product of false tax return filings. Id. ¶¶ 7, 8.

         Pursuant to U.S. Bank's Deposit Agreement with Plaintiff (the “DAA”), U.S. Bank was permitted to place a hold on Plaintiff's accounts if it suspected any fraudulent activity. Specifically, the DAA stated:

We reserve the right to place a hold on your account if we suspect irregular, fraudulent, unlawful or other unauthorized activity involved with your account. We may attempt to notify you of such a hold, but we are not required to provide notice prior to placing the hold. You agree that we may maintain such a hold until all claims against you or us to the funds held in your account, whether civil or criminal in nature, have been resolved fully in our sole satisfaction.

Id. ¶ 15. Moreover, U.S. Bank reserved the right to close any account “for any reason or for no reason at all.” Id. ¶ 16.

         On August 3, 2009, U.S. Bank transferred funds from the 5258 Account and the 6154 Account, in the combined amount of $233, 235.07, to a holding account pending further direction from the IRS. Id. ¶ 17. On October 7, 2009, the IRS sent a letter to U.S. Bank advising that it had issued certain tax refunds incorrectly and requested U.S. Bank's assistance to recover any amounts in its possession, up to $330, 000, given to Plaintiff. Id. ΒΆ 18. On November 12, 2009, U.S. Bank sent a cashier's check to ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.