Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dahlhammer v. Citibank N.A.

November 30, 2006

RODERICK DAHLHAMMER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA) N.A., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Jones

MEMORANDUM

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS MEMORANDUM IS AS FOLLOWS:

Pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Roderick Dahlhammer's ("Plaintiff" or "Dahlhammer") Complaint ("the Motion") filed by one of the Defendants in the above-captioned case, Citibank (South Dakota) N.A. ("Defendant" or "Citibank"), on May 8, 2006. (Rec. Doc. 9). For the reasons that follow, Defendant's Motion shall be granted.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 29, 2005, Dahlhammer filed a Complaint arising under the provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., the Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act ("FCEUA"), 73 PA. STAT. § 2270.1 et seq., and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL"), 73 PA. STAT. § 201-1 et seq., in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and naming Citibank as one of the Defendants. (Rec. Doc. 1-1). On October 19, 2005, Citibank filed an Answer to the Complaint. (Rec. Doc. 4).

On May 8, 2006, Citibank filed the instant Motion (doc. 9) and Brief in Support thereof (doc. 10). The Motion has been fully briefed by the parties, and is, therefore, ripe for disposition.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that his claims arose after the opening of a revolving open account, account number 4339099004325649, with Salomon Smith Barney, under the name of The Travelers Bank, on or about October 15, 1997. (Rec. Doc. 1-1, ¶¶ 14-15). In early 2003, "Citibank became involved with Plaintiff Dahlhammer." (Rec. Doc. 1-1, ¶ 14). On or about July 16, 2003, Plaintiff began to challenge the alleged debt that he had incurred pursuant to this account. (Rec. Doc. 1-1, ¶¶ 14, 16). Plaintiff's requests and demands for documentation were directed to Citi Cards, now known as Citibank. (Rec. Docs. 1-1, ¶¶ 16-18, 21; 1-3 at 1-4; 1-5 at 2). On or about August 19, 2003, and October 1, 2003, Plaintiff also filed a "Notice of Dispute, Notice of Fault with Opportunity to Cure," and a "Notice of Fault," respectively, in the Court of Common Pleas of York County. (Rec. Doc. 1-1, ¶¶ 19-20).

After Citibank failed to produce any of the documents Plaintiff had repeatedly requested, Plaintiff filed a claim with the Champlain Valley Arbitration Corporation ("Champlain") on or about March 3, 2004. (Rec. Doc. 1-1, ¶ 22). Champlain then sent similar requests and demands for documentation to Citi Cards. (Rec. Doc. 1-1, ¶¶ 23-24).

"Citibank failed to respond to Dahlhammer as well as an arbitration company." (Rec. Doc. 1-1, ¶ 26). Thus, Champlain issued an "award" against Citi Cards for failure to supply any of the requested documents. (Rec. Doc. 1-1, ¶ 27).

On or about March 10, 2004, and March 11, 2004, National Financial Systems, Inc., telephoned Plaintiff in an attempt to collect his alleged debt. (Rec. Doc. 1-1, ¶ 28). On March 15, 2004, National Financial Systems, Inc., also sent a notice of the debt to Plaintiff. (Rec. Doc. 1-1, ¶ 28).

On or about January 5, 2005, Citi Cards wrote Plaintiff a collection letter (doc. 1-1, ¶ 30), and on or about February 9, 2005, an attorney from Burton Neil & Associates, P.C. ("Burton Neil") also telephoned Plaintiff in an attempt to collect the alleged debt. (Rec. Doc. 1-1, ¶ 29). On or about February 7, 2005, Burton Neil also mailed Plaintiff a collection letter, demanding payment of $33,174.93, allegedly due its client, Citibank U.S.A., N.A. (Rec. Doc. 1-1, ¶ 29). Correspondence between Plaintiff and the law firm ensued, culminating in the firm filing suit against Plaintiff in the Court of Common Pleas of York County on May 31, 2005. (See Rec. Doc. 1-1, ¶¶ 31-37). The lawsuit appears to be ongoing. (See Rec. Doc. 1-1, ¶¶ 38-43).

In his Complaint, Plaintiff seeks various forms of relief under the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., the FCEUA, 73 PA. STAT. § 2270.1 et seq., and the UTPCPL, 73 PA. STAT. § 201-1 et seq. (Rec. Doc. 1-1). However, the principal forms of relief sought are a declaratory judgment that Defendants are in violation of the FDCPA, an injunction prohibiting Defendants from communicating with Plaintiff, a judgment for actual damages against Defendants, a judgment for statutory damages against Defendants, an award of costs ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.