Polino v. The Huntington Nat'l Bank
| Decision Date | 29 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 1:22-CV-13 |
| Parties | ROBERT D. POLINO, Plaintiff, v. THE HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING REMAND
This matter comes before the undersigned U.S. Magistrate Judge pursuant to an Order of Referral entered by the Honorable United States District Judge Thomas S. Kleeh on February 11 2022. [ECF No. 2]. Presently pending before the Court is Defendant The Huntington National Bank's Motion to Dismiss. [ECF No. 4; see also ECF Nos. 5, 21]. On March 23, 2022, Defendant filed a Notice, [ECF No. 25] representing that Defendant does not oppose remand back to the Circuit Court of Marion County, West Virginia if the Court believes it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action.
For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned FINDS that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter which involves the validity of a statutory form power of attorney and access to finances during an ongoing state Adult Protective Services investigation. Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this matter be REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Marion County, West Virginia, [ECF No. 4], and STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court. The undersigned consequently RECOMMENDS that the Motion to Dismiss, [ECF Nos. 4], be HELD IN ABEYANCE until the Motion may be properly handled upon remand by the state circuit court.
On January 3, 2022, pro se Plaintiff Robert D. Polino filed a Complaint in the Circuit Court of Marion County, West Virginia alleging that a statutory power of attorney (“POA”), authorizing him to make property decisions for his mother Kathleen Polino, is not being honored by Defendant The Huntington National Bank (“Huntington”). [ECF No. 1-1 at 7]. Plaintiff's pro se Complaint requested relief in the form of access to the bank accounts, $800, 000 for current costs and expenses, including for “personal humiliation, ” and the no-cost issuance of all needed bank orders. [ECF No. 1-1 at 7-8].
On February 7, 2022 Defendant removed the case to this Court under diversity jurisdiction, as the parties are diverse in citizenship and the amount-in-controversy, as alleged by Plaintiff, exceeds $75, 000. [ECF No. 1].
On February 11, 2022, the Honorable United States District Judge Thomas S. Kleeh entered an Order referring this matter to the undersigned for the purposes of conducting a scheduling conference and issuing a scheduling order, for written orders or reports and recommendations, as the case may be, regarding any motions filed, and to dispose of any other matters that may arise. [ECF No. 2]. On the same day, the undersigned entered a First Order and Notice Regarding Discovery and Scheduling setting initial planning and disclosure deadlines in this matter. [ECF No. 3].
On February 14, 2022, Defendant filed Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 4], and Memorandum of Law in Support, [ECF No. 5], arguing the Complaint should be dismissed for two reasons: (1) lack of standing and (2) failure to state a cognizable legal cause of action. Defendant asserted that in May of 2019, Plaintiff attempted to close Kathleen Polino's savings account and transfer the funds into her checking; Defendant denied Plaintiff access to the accounts and informed him there was no valid power of attorney. [ECF No. 5]. In October 2015, Plaintiff was provided with access to his mother's accounts as he appeared on a signature card as her agent with a POA. [Id.] On June 13, 2016, Kathleen Polino provided a hand-written note stating Plaintiff was to be removed as power of attorney from the accounts; signature cards for both accounts containing “Removal of POA” of Robert Polino were subsequently filed. [Id.] On August 30, 2016, a signed and notarized letter by Kathleen Polino requesting Plaintiff's removal from the accounts was filed.
A Status Conference was held on March 3, 2022 wherein Plaintiff represented he had a valid, notarized power of attorney that was executed in 2019. The Court directed Plaintiff to provide a copy of such a document to counsel for the Defendant who was further directed to submit said document to the Court, if provided. Counsel for the Defendant made an oral motion, [ECF No. 11], to continue all discovery, disclosure, and planning deadlines previously imposed; the undersigned granted the oral motion by written Order. [ECF No. 12].
On March 8, 2022, the parties provided the 2019 Power of Attorney to the Court. [ECF No. 14].
On March 16, 2022, Defendant filed a Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant The Huntington National Bank's Motion to Dismiss. Within the Motion, Defendant fully incorporates and reaffirms the arguments made in the original Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 21 at 2]. Defendant adds that Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed, despite the 2019 Power of Attorney, because, pursuant to W.Va. Code § 39B-1-12(c)(6), Defendant Huntington was not required to accept or honor the power of attorney where Defendant Huntington has actual knowledge that the Adult Protective Services Division (“APS”) of West Virginia's Department of Health and Human Resources has received a report stating a good faith belief that Kathleen Polino may be subject to physical or financial abuse, neglect, exploitation or abandonment by Plaintiff Robert D. Polino. [ECF No. 21 at 5]. Defendant includes as an exhibit an affidavit by Melissa Smart, Senior Vice President for the Huntington National Bank testifying to her actual knowledge of said APS report.
On March 18, 2022, pro se Plaintiff filed with the Court “all of [his] paperwork” responsive to the case including his letters written to counsel for the Defendant, another copy of the 2019 Statutory Power of Attorney, and a copy of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. [ECF No. 22].
A second Status Conference was conducted on March 21, 2022. [ECF Nos. 13, 23]. The parties were directed to meet and confer prior to said Status Conference. [ECF No. 15]. At the Status Conference, both parties confirmed that there is an ongoing investigation by APS. The parties also proffered on the record that the funds inside the bank account at issue total less than $75, 000.
At the Status Conference, the undersigned inquired of counsel for the Defendant regarding this Court's subject matter jurisdiction and ability to hear the case under diversity jurisdiction as alleged. Plaintiff represented to the Court that he would prefer to handle this matter in the circuit courts of West Virginia, hence why he initiated this action in the Circuit Court of Marion County, West Virginia. The undersigned instructed the parties they would be given the opportunity to file supplemental briefs on the issue of this Court's jurisdiction over this matter.
The Court subsequently entered an Order providing for the filing of supplemental briefs by March 28, 2022. [ECF No. 24]. Specifically, the Order invited the parties to file briefs, if they so choose, as to two limited issues (1) whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over a matter related to state domestic relations, particularly related to dispute regarding the validity of a statutory power of attorney where an adult protective services investigation is pending; and (2) whether diversity jurisdiction can be maintained where the parties agree that the actual economic damages are less than $75, 000, and the amount-in-controversy alleged arises from non-economic damages which at this time are unsubstantiated and noncalculable. [Id.]
On March 23, 2022, Defendant filed a Notice, [ECF No. 25], representing that Defendant “has no objection to remand if the Court believes it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action.” Defendant further stated that Defendant would not be taking the opportunity to file a supplemental brief on the two limited jurisdictional issues outlined in the Court's prior Order. [Id.].
District courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010). A district court “must dismiss a claim if, at any time, it appears that the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3); Duffield v. Memorial Hosp. Ass'n, 361 F.Supp. 398 (S.D. W.Va. 1973), aff'd sub. nom. Duffield v. Charleston Area Medical Ctr., 503F.2d 512 (4th Cir. 1974); see also Bolin v. Chavez, 210 F.3d 389 (10th Cir. 2000) (). Indeed, whenever the Court is without subject matter jurisdiction, “the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 1012-16 (1998); Reinbold v. Evers, 187 F.3d 348, 359 n. 10 (4th Cir. 1999). See also Lovern v. Edwards, 190 F.3d 648, 654 (4th Cir. 1999) ().
Generally federal courts abstain from interference in domestic relations matters best left within the providence of state courts. See Ex parte Burrus, 136 U.S. 586 593-94 (1890) (); Wasserman v. Wasserman, 671 F.2d 832, 834 (4th Cir. 1982) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial