Benzemann vs CitiBank | Citibank Suit Over Mistaken ID Revived, FDCPA
H/T Gary Dubin
Courthouse News-
It is not too late for a man to sue after his Citibank account was frozen while the bank tried to collect another customer's debt, the Second Circuit ruled on Monday.
The case stems from a April 25, 2003, judgment that Citibank subsidiary New Century Financial Services landed against a man by the name of Andrew Benzemann.
Citibank used that Manhattan Supreme Court judgment a little more than five years later to justify freezing the account of Alexander Benzemann.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ____________________ August Term, 2015 (Argued: August 20, 2015 Decided: November 16, 2015) Docket No. 14?2668?cv ____________________ ALEXANDER A. BENZEMANN, Plaintiff?Appellant, v. CITIBANK N.A., HOUSLANGER & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, TODD E. HOUSLANGER, AND NEW CENTURY FINANCIAL SERVICES, Defendants?Appellees.* ____________________ Before: CABRANES, POOLER, and CHIN, Circuit Judges. Appeal from a June 27, 2014 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Buchwald, J.), dismissing Plaintiff? Appellant Alexander 1 A. Benzemann’s claims under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and state law. In this opinion, we address the district court’s dismissal of the FDCPA claim as untimely. We hold that an FDCPA violation “occurs” for the purposes of the FDCPA’s statute?of?limitations provision when a bank freezes a debtor’s bank account, not when a debt collector sends a restraining notice to the bank. Given this holding, Benzemann’s FDCPA claim may be timely. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s dismissal of the FDCPA and state law claims and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. In a summary order issued simultaneously with this opinion, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Benzemann’s other claims. [...]