admin

Good Case Law Smacking Citibank over Production of Affadavits

Recommended Posts

Johnson v Law Offices of Farrell & Seldin et al in the US District Court, District of New Mexico. 

 

"The Defendants have filed their motions to dismiss without bothering to set out the factual allegations in the Amended Complaint that relate to each claim for which they seek dismissal. As the moving party asserting an affirmative defense, the Defendants bear the initial burden of demonstrating that they are entitled to dismissal because “the specific allegations in the complaint [do not] plausibly support a legal claim for relief.” Alvarado v. KOB-TV, L.L.C., 493 F.3d 1210, 1215 n. 2 (10th Cir. 2007). Here, the Defendants draw legal conclusions without referring to the specific allegations in Johnson’s Amended Complaint that support his claims for relief, causing the Court to have to do their work for them."

 

That was just a footnote.  The judge was pissed off and handed them a 23 page smackdown over a simple MTD.  Judicial notice has also been taken of how Citibank produces its affidavits, and in a federal court to boot!

 

"Johnson attached an affidavit and several exhibits to his Amended Complaint, including the letters he received from Citibank, its Attorneys, and the UCB; letters and some filings from the state-court collection action; and copies of entries from Shayna Gier’s personal blog in which she documents her activities as Citicorp’s employee. See Am. Compl., Exs. A-I. Johnson’s affidavit
states that his research of the state-district court’s database shows that the four attorneys licensed in New Mexico who work for Farrell & Sheldin filed over 3000 collection cases in the three-month period of February 1, 2011-May 2, 2011, which he contends shows that the Attorneys could not have diligently reviewed the information it used to prosecute Citibank’s collection efforts against him.
See Affidavit at 3-4. His exhibits demonstrate that he asked Citibank to admit that Shayna Gier had a quota to meet in preparing affidavits for collection purposes. See Am. Compl., Doc. 1-2 at 6-7.


Ms. Gier’s October 2009 blog discussed how Citicorp required her to meet a daily quota in “verifying as many affidavits as I possibly could,” and that when she did not make the quota, she was placed on an “overtime freeze.” Id. Doc. 1-3 at 5. She stated that she had prepared “close to the highest number of affidavits” but that she still had not been able to meet the quota. Id. Her November 4, 2009 blog stated that the quota was 37 affidavits per hour, but she had been able to prepare only “30 per hour.” Id. at 12. She stated that her failure to “mak[e] goal” also meant that she “gets no raise next year,” and that she earned less that “9 dollars an hour.”"

 

As a side note: The judge did dismiss one of defendant's claims against Farrell & Seldin.  She said defendant could recover emotional distress damages under the NM Unfair Trade Practices Act or the FDCPA, and that the tort of IIED was simply redundant.  The IIED claim against Citibank stands, and defendant has a doctor, medical records and prescriptions to back it up. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In  Citibank (SD) NA v. Goldberg, 2009 NY Slip Op 51735 - NY: Appellate Term, 2nd Dept. 20092009 NY Slip Op 51735(U), the Court stated: “In this action for breach of a credit card agreement and upon an account stated… Plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, its cause of action for an account stated since the supporting affidavit of Kristina Hall did not set forth any facts as to the specific monthly statements allegedly mailed to defendant (see Discover Bank v Williamson, 14 Misc 3d 136[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50231 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2007]). Moreover, Hall's supporting affidavit failed to contain facts showing that defendant retained the alleged stated account for an unreasonable time without objecting thereto (see Jim-Mar Corp. v Aquatic Constr., 195 AD2d 868, 869 [1993]; Discover Bank v Williamson, 14 Misc 3d 136[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50231 [2007], supra). Thus, plaintiff did not adequately demonstrate that there was an account between the parties and that a specified balance was found to be due (see generally Citibank [s.D.] v Jones, 272 AD2d 815, 816 [2000]). Therefore, the order, insofar as it granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, is reversed and the motion denied.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice.

 

I'm not above selling my soul to the devil but it would take more than $9 an hour.

further proof that they are screwing everyone. I bet if she met quota they would admonish her for "robosigning" and take her overtime away. Citibank affidavits fight them on these grounds. make discovery about it. shoot file a whistleblower complaint for workplace violations because they make no provision for breaks of 10 minutes.

nor lunch. figure 1 hour total in lunch and breaks taken away that leaves them with 7 hours to make 289 affidavits per day or 41 affidavits an hour. ouch for less than a Mcdonalds worker. Gotta hate that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not surprised at any of this.  It's a Citibank affidavit that I filed the complaint with the Secretary of State of Missouri about the notary signature not matching the official signature on file.  Still waiting for the outcome, but it's just one more sign of questionable practices on the part of Citibank and their affidavits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.