Bonilla v. Am. Heritage Fed. Credit Union
| Decision Date | 07 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-2053 |
| Parties | MERSADIES BONILLA v. AMERICAN HERITAGE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Mersadies Bonilla pro se seeks relief under a variety of federal consumer credit and banking statutes and regulations and Pennsylvania law relating to her credit union's handling of an August 2016 transaction after it learned of criminal charges against Ms. Bonilla arising out of the 2016 transaction ended in a nolle pros dismissal in March 2020. She also sues the credit union's President Bruce Foluke,1 its Risk Compliance Officer Danielle Basich, and one of its unidentified branch managers without distinguishing their individual liability. We granted her leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Congress requires we now screen her claims before issuing summons and involving defendants. Consistent with Congress's mandate, we carefully reviewed her varied and conclusory allegations. She fails to state a claim against any Defendant under the referenced consumer credit and banking statutes but may be able to do so through an amended complaint. She lacks standing to proceed under the Dodd-Frank Act and Regulation P requiring we dismiss those claims with prejudice. We decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her Pennsylvania claims until she can plead a basis for claims under federal law.
Ms. Bonilla is a member of the American Heritage Federal Credit Union with a savings account and a secured credit card account.2 Ms. Bonilla now appears to contest three transactions she claims the Credit Union and its employees either attempted to collect as a debt and/or inaccurately reported to credit reporting agencies:
Ms. Bonilla does not plead how these events relate to one another.
In July 2016, someone deposited money from another shareholder's account into Ms. Bonilla's account.6 Ms. Bonilla alleges the Credit Union's unidentified branch manager, "acting outside their authority," contacted the Philadelphia Police Department to report fraud on the account.7 A state court issued an arrest warrant for Ms. Bonilla in August 2016.8 Ms. Bonilla denies wrongdoing with regard to the monies deposited into her savings account at the Credit Union.
The public docket reflects the Commonwealth brought charges against Ms. Bonilla in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on August 19, 2016 relating to the money the Credit Union believed was fraudulently deposited into her account.9 The public docket shows the Commonwealth charged Ms. Bonilla with forgery; theft by unlawful taking-movable property; theft by deception-false impression; receiving stolen property; identity theft; criminal use of a communication facility; access to a device used to obtain or attempt to obtain property or services; and securing execution of documents by deception under Pennsylvania law.10
Before resolution of her criminal charges, Ms. Bonilla sued the Credit Union before us in Bonilla v. American Heritage Federal Credit Union.11 She alleged in August 2016, someone made three deposits to her savings account totaling $5,600 from the account of Joyce Eubanks, another Credit Union member.12 Ms. Eubanks contested the validity of the $5,600 in transfers and the Credit Union, along with Philadelphia Police, investigated the transfers as fraudulent.
In response to what it considered fraudulent activity, the Credit Union "reversed" the $5,600 transfer to Ms. Bonilla's savings account on September 7, 2016.13 After debiting $5,600 against Ms. Bonilla's savings account, her account had an ending balance of negative $3,334.92. The Credit Union charged off the overdrawn savings account in December 2016 with a negative balance of $3,334.92.14 The Credit Union first reported the charged off savings account to credit reporting agencies in January 2017.15
Ms. Bonilla filed a Complaint against the Credit Union on August 3, 2018, a First Amended Complaint on August 24, 2018, a Second Amended Complaint on August 27, 2018, and a Third Amended Complaint on September 12, 2018. We granted the Credit Union's motion to dismiss with prejudice all claims relating to the August 2016 transactions and without prejudice to allow Ms. Bonilla to file an amended complaint to plead timely and plausible claims regarding an alleged overdraft protection transaction.16
Ms. Bonilla filed a Fourth Amended Complaint alleging the Credit Union violated federal law by opening a "Deposit Account Overdraft Protection Account" added to her credit report in the amount of $3,334 beginning in August 2018.17 She claimed the Credit Union's conduct violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act ("EFTA"),18 its implementing Regulation E,19 the Truth in Lending Act, ("TILA")20 and the Fair Credit Billing Act ("FCBA")21 and its implementingRegulation Z.22 On April 4, 2019, we granted the Credit Union's motion for judgment on the pleadings.23 We found EFTA and Regulation E did not apply to Ms. Bonilla's challenge to the Credit Union's intra-institutional transfer between her account and the account of Ms. Eubanks.24 We also found Ms. Bonilla failed to state claims under TILA, the FCBA, and Regulation Z governing the disclosure of credit terms and protecting consumers against inaccurate and unfair credit billing and credit card practices based on fees or charges involved in credit transactions.25 We concluded the Credit Union did not engage in a credit transaction; it reversed a deposit into a savings account upon determining fraud in the deposit transfer. The Credit Union did not charge a fee or interest, thus there is no disclosure violation.
Sometime in July 2019 the Philadelphia District Attorney's office told the Credit Union of its decision to dismiss the criminal charges against Ms. Bonilla.26 The Philadelphia District Attorney nolle prossed the charges on March 11, 2020.27
Notwithstanding notice from the Philadelphia District Attorney's office in July 2019 it planned to dismiss charges against Ms. Bonilla and while the criminal case remained pending, "Defendants" continued to report to TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax from July 2019 through early April 2020 delinquencies in Ms. Bonilla's savings share account and credit card account in the amounts of $1,904 and $3,3 3 4.28 Not only did "Defendants" continue to report delinquencies to the credit reporting agencies, the Credit Union, as a "creditor," "took legal action to collect the disputed amount, threatened [Ms. Bonilla's] credit rating, reported [her] accounts as delinquent, and restricted/closed [her] account while [she] disputed charges."29
A "Defendant" then reported to Check Systems Inc. a charged off savings deposit account in the amount of $4,818.35 for July 2019 through early April 2020.30 Ms. Bonilla alleges thisamount is incorrect and different from the amount reported to other credit reporting agencies. She asserts Ms. Basich, Mr. Foluke, and the Credit Union's reporting to Check Systems, Inc. of an incorrect amount is "libel defamation of character," negligent, malicious, and "Defendant is seeking unfair and unjust enrichment."31 Ms. Bonilla also alleges someone took $600 of "secured money" and "there is no present right to security funds and/or interest on account or money received by [Credit Union] January 20th of 2016 from Plaintiff [sic]."32
Ms. Bonilla disputed the Credit Union's reported delinquencies with all credit reporting agencies in May, July, September, October, and December 2019 and January and March 2020 and her credit reports regarding her accounts at the Credit Union read: "Account in dispute-reported by subscriber/Account information disputed by customer under the Fair Credit Reporting Act."33 Ms. Bonilla alleges "Defendant," in response to her disputed charges with the credit reporting agencies, reported back to the credit reporting agencies its accounting is accurate, and Ms. Bonilla's two accounts are fraudulent and delinquent as of December 2016 even though "Defendant" knew in July 2019 the District Attorney intended to drop charges against Ms. Bonilla.34
The reported delinquencies in her accounts at the Credit Union only cleared up after she mailed a notarized letter to the credit reporting agencies and the Credit Union. An unidentified "Fraud Investigator" at the Credit Union confirmed receipt of her letter on April 2, 2020 and told her of the "remov[al] of her accounts from Check Systems and ... credit bureaus."35 The Credit Union continued to inaccurately report to credit reporting agencies for three more days (through April 5, 2020).36 "Defendants" failed to return monies to her in the amount taken from her savings and credit card accounts despite learning in July 2019 the Philadelphia District Attorney intended to dismiss charges against her.37
The charges against her having been nolle prossed, "Defendants" "offset" her loan without her authorization; continued to report to credit reporting agencies of a debt owed by Ms. Bonilla; continued to inaccurately report after July 2019; failed to thoroughly investigate the 2016 deposit before calling Philadelphia Police; withheld information from Philadelphia Police; closed her accounts and marked them fraudulent when the accounts were not fraudulent; failed to tell her of the Philadelphia Police...
To continue reading
Request your trial