Mhina v. Citizens Bank

• Decision Date: 01 November 2022
• Docket Number: 5:22-cv-427 (BKS/ML)
• Parties: JAMES P. MHINA, Plaintiff, v. CITIZENS BANK, N.A., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

JAMES P. MHINA, Plaintiff,
v.
CITIZENS BANK, N.A., et al., Defendants.

No. 5:22-cv-427 (BKS/ML)

United States District Court, N.D. New York

November 1, 2022

Appearances:

Plaintiff pro se:

James P. Mhina

For Defendant Citizens Bank, N.A.:

Geoffrey W. Millsom

Brenna Anatone Force

Adler Pollock & Sheehan P.C.

For Defendants Woodhaven Apartments and Vinod Luthra:

John C. Nutter

Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP

For Defendants City of Syracuse, Anthony Collavita, and David Burske:

Susan R. Katzoff

Corporation Counsel, City of Syracuse

Danielle R. Smith

Sarah M. Knickerbocker

Assistant Corporation Counsel

1

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, Chief United States District Judge:

I. INTRODUCTION

Pro se plaintiff James P. Mhina brings this action against fourteen Defendants: (1) Citizens Bank, N.A.; (2) Bank of America, N.A.; (3) Key Bank, N.A.; (4) Woodhaven Apartments and Vinod Luthra, “President, C.E.O. Woodhaven Apartment” (together, the “Woodhaven Defendants”); (5) John Cruize, “V.P. Security, Key Bank”; (6) Onondaga County; (7) Beth VanDoren, “A.D. Attorney, Onondaga County”; (8) Cathleen Nash, “C.E.O., President of Citizens Bank”; (9) Amy Bidwell, “Bank of America Bank Branch Manager”; (10) City of Syracuse, Syracuse City Police Detective Anthony Collavita, and Syracuse City Police Detective David Burske (together, the “City Defendants”); and (11) Linda Mossulu, “V.P. Key Bank.” (Dkt. No. 6 (amended complaint)).^[1] Plaintiff's amended complaint appears to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, as well as claims for “breached fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, [and] breach of contract.” (Id. at 13). Plaintiff seeks monetary damages of “$800.00 billion dollars” plus “$300 billion cash down payment for 20 years guarantee on 705 letters of credit.” (Id. at 15). Presently before the Court are: (1) Citizens Bank's motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(4), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6), (Dkt. No. 28); (2) the Woodhaven Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6), (Dkt. No. 33); (3) the City Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), (Dkt. No. 15); and (4) Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, (Dkt. No. 18). The parties have filed responsive papers. (Dkt. Nos. 19, 20, 21, 22, 29,

2

31, 43, 44). For the following reasons, the Court grants the three motions to dismiss and denies Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Amended Complaint^[2]

The amended complaint alleges that Defendants “violated their fiduciary duty and contracts” “to collect [Plaintiff's] 705 letters of credit very valuable, 20 years guarantee and $300.00 billion cash that [Plaintiff's] business associate had sent as down payment for the 20 years guarantee.” (Dkt. No. 6, at 1, 6). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights “for not collecting 705 very [illegible] letters of credit.” (Id. at 13). He further alleges that Defendants conspired to bring “unfounded criminal charges by using wrong law and irrelevant evidence” in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985, his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, and his right to a fair grand jury. (Id.). Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants “falsely and fraudulently lied” before an Onondaga County grand jury and at Plaintiff's criminal trial in violation of Plaintiff's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that his indictment was “dismissed on April 9, 2014 after spending 10 years in maximum security prisons of State of New York.” (Id.).

Plaintiff seeks “monetary damages of total U.S. $800.00 billion dollars, for the total [illegible] 705 letters of credit, plus $300 billion cash down payment for 20 years guarantee on 705 letters of credit.” (Id. at 15).

B. Prior Related Case: J&W Trading

In March 2015, Plaintiff commenced a lawsuit in this Court against substantially the same Defendants as in the instant matter. J. & W. Trading & Leasing Inc. v. Van Doren, No. 15 cv-327 (GLS/ML) (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2015) (“J&W Trading”).

3

Plaintiff alleged that he was prosecuted and convicted of several offenses which were overturned on appeal, and that several of his bank accounts were closed, which hurt his credit rating. See J&W Trading, Dkt. No. 11, at 2-3 (July 8, 2015). Ultimately, all of Plaintiff's claims were dismissed. See id., Dkt. Nos. 11, 22, 115, 175, 215. Plaintiff appealed to the Second Circuit, which dismissed his appeal as “lack[ing] an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Mhina v. Buske, No. 20-cv-444, 2021 WL 5286679, at *1, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 34315, at *1 (2d Cir. May 13, 2021). Plaintiff then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, which was denied. Mhina v. Van Doren, 142 S.Ct. 484 (2021).

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A. Rules 12(b)(4) and 12(b)(5)-Insufficient Process and Insufficient Service of Process

“Objections to sufficiency of process under [Rule] 12(b)(4) must identify substantive deficiencies in the summons, complaint or accompanying documentation.” DiFillippo v. Special Metals Corp., 299 F.R.D. 348, 352-53 (N.D.N.Y. 2014) (citation omitted). A Rule 12(b)(4) motion properly challenges “noncompliance with the provisions of Rule 4(b) or any applicable provision incorporated by Rule 4(b) that deals specifically with the content of the summons.” Soos v. Niagara County, 195 F.Supp.3d 458, 462 (W.D.N.Y. 2016) (citation and internal footnote omitted).

A Rule 12(b)(5) motion, by contrast, “is the proper vehicle for challenging the mode of delivery or lack of delivery of the summons and complaint.” Id. “Before a federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the procedural requirement of service of summons must be satisfied.” Omni Capital Int'l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987). “Absent consent, this means there must be authorization for service of summons on the

4

defendant.” Id. A court “must look to matters outside the complaint to determine whether it has jurisdiction.” Darden v. DaimlerChrysler N. Am. Holding Corp., 191 F.Supp.2d 382, 387 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). “When a defendant raises a Rule 12(b)(5) ‘challenge to the sufficiency of service of process, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving its adequacy.'” Mende v. Milestone Tech., Inc., 269 F.Supp.2d 246, 251 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (quoting Preston v. New York, 223 F.Supp.2d 452, 466 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)). A plaintiff must, “through specific factual allegations and any supporting materials, make a prima facie showing that service was proper.” Kwon v. Yun, No. 05-cv-1142, 2006 WL 416375, at *2, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7386, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2006) (citations omitted).

A dismissal under Rule 12(b)(4) or Rule 12(b)(5) “is not on the merits and has no res judicata effect.” 5B C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 1353 (3d ed.).

B. Rule 12(b)(6)

To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, “a complaint must provide ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Mayor & City Council of Balt. v. Citigroup, Inc., 709 F.3d 129, 135 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The plaintiff must...