11<

. 81ITRICTOOURT -N.D.MY.
] UNITED STATES DIST CT cfUtt E 0
NORTHERN DISTRICT F r;;;~~~002

Tonya R. Powell, Plaintiff

;r

Q'CLOCK_ _ _ _

lII

~ Lawrence K. Baerman,Clerk- 8inghamtoo .

",. .~ IA!( •• KtJ

RJI¥Y!"""

~. .•

'

Civil Action No:

v. 3:02-CV-1605 TJM GLS

American General Beneficial BSB Bank Charter One Bank Citifin an cial HSBCBank M&TBank NBT Bank,
Defendants

COMPLAINT
(1) Violation of State and Federal Banking Laws and Statues 912CFR202 &226 ( Reg B & Z) ( Fair Lending Laws and Credit Discrimination)
(2) Violation of the United States Constitution (1791) 7th,9th,10th, 14th,15th Amendments (denial)
( 3) Violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1968

( 4) Violation of Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 U.S.c. 1691-1691(1)
( 5 ) Violation of 7th Amendment ( Right of trial by jury) Demand For Jury Trial
( 6 ) Violations of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 ( 12 U.S.c. 2901-2906)

Comes now the Plaintiff in the named case as alleges as follows: This action is brought by the Plaintiff 'Powell" to enforce the Provisions of the Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Equal Credit Opportunity Act ,15 U.S.C. 1691-1691(f) Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 ( 12 U.S.C. 2901-2906 ), United States Constitution (1791) Violations of the 7th, 9th, ,14th, 15th Amendments. Violations to Comply with State and Federal Banking Laws Regulations ( B & Z ) . This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.c. 3614,and 15 U.S.C. 1691 (h). 1. At all times herein, Plaintiff 'Powell" was a resident of the County of Broome,
State of New York, and resided at 60 Court Street,. City of Binghamton. 2. At all times herein, American General, Beneficial,BSB Bank, Charter One,
Citifmancial, M & T Bank, NBT Bank Defendants is a federally insured bank doing business in the State of New York. Their business includes regularly extending credit, including personal and commercial loans. The bank also extends credit for home improvement, purchase for mobile home loans which are residential real-estate related transactions as defined in the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.c. 3605 (b) (1). As a federally insured lending institution (Banks) is subject to federal laws governing Fair Lending, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act, and the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 ( 12 U.S.c. 2901-2906). The Community Reinvestment Act ,12 U.S.C. 2901 et seq., and its implementing regulations, 12 C.F.R 354 seq., require Defendants to meet the credit needs of the entire community in which it operates, including the credit needs oflow-to-moderate income areas in the community.
3. The Defendant(s) American General branch in Vestal headquarters Indiana,

( 2 )
(2) Benefical branch in Vestal headquarters in Chicago, BSB Bank branch in Binghamton,NY headquarters in Binghamton, NY. 3. Charter One Bank branch in Binghamton, 4. Citifinancial,branch in Johnson City and Endicott, Headquarters in Baltimore, MD,(5) HSBC Bank locations in Binghamton, headquarters in Buffalo,NY (6)M & T Bank branches in Binghamton and Endicott headquarters located in Buffalo. (7) NBT branches in Port Dick and Maine ,NY headquarters in Norwich.
4. Plaintiff had applied to all of the above named defendants for credit business, personal and a home mortgage loan all were denied no second review. Explanation given No credit, No collateral, Co-signer.
5. The Plaintiff 'Powell" does believe the above banks did not want to work with her is because of her gender and skin color. Upon the Plaintiff 'Powell' asking for another review the decision did not change.
6. Banks for years have been getting away with "unfair business practices". The practice is a continuance from the illegal business practice they used in the early 1900's to keep negroes from obtaining home loans and from voting. If whites did allow negroes to buy home they were the shabbiest homes and paid outrageous prices (higher interest rates). The insurance coverage on the homes was twice that of whites.
7. The defendants continue to deny access of life, liberty, and property to individuals and families of African descent. Denying them expectancy of "economic advantage or benefit.

( 3)
8. The right for the Plaintiff "Powell" to pursue a lawful business, property, or anything else she is entitled to enjoy the fruits and advantages of one's industry and efforts are rights which the law protects against unjustified and wrongful interference by another person.
10. The constitution of the United States is the 'Supreme" law of the land" and is itself a law for which it is the duty of all the courts" high and low" , both state and national to sustain and enforce as they do all other laws. Even if wording of law or ruling is constitutionally correct, if it is not applied equally it is unconstitutional.
11. The First Amendment, including specifically the right to petition the court, is incorporated against the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.
12. The judiciary Act of 1789 provides that: In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct cases therein, 28 US.C.1654 this ancient protection is rooted in the fundamental principles of our jurisprudence. The right to proceed pro se is a fundamental statutory right that is afforded the highest degree of protection in which Plaintiff 'Powell" brings this civil action.
13. The business practices of the defendant(s) are and always have been illegal for many years.
14. Defendants counsel may argue that these laws do not apply to the banking system.

( 4) 15. The Nineth Amendment states; "Rule of Construction" of the constitution.
That no natural rights are abridged merely because they were not enumerated in the preceding eight amendments of the 'Bill of Rights" by the people. 16. The banking system has artfully ,dexterous in doing business secretly or cunning in evading detection by denying African-Americans access to credit and the economic up climb for many years. Their actions are very selective.
17. It was not until the ratification of the 14th Amendment that Federal Courts were granted a weapon to enforce many of the guarantees stated in the first ten amendments upon state jurisdicitions.
18. Opening the book on lending discrimination is nothing new. Many years explicit discrimination in mortgage, business, auto lending was and always have been a broader pattern of racial discrimination. The early 1900 in segregation banks would not loan money to blacks for home, auto, personal loans. Even insurance coverage the interest rates were outrageous.
19. Discrimination against people of color by lenders has been a long-standing civil rights concern as well as a constitutional concern in the United States. Both Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1977, commonly called the 'Fair Lending Laws" prohibit discrimination against applicants who apply for credit if their race is not white.

( 5)
20. These statutory prohibitions have been the law of the land for many years, there has been scant administrative or judicial action to challenge lending practices that suggest discriminatory behavior by lenders. While the Fair Lending Laws have for the most part eliminated explicit forms of discrimination by lenders the evidence available suggest that people of color are still subject to subtle forms of discrimination in obtaining access to credit i.e. Mortgage, Business, Auto, and
Personal Loans. Lending rates are dramatically lower in African-American and Latino neighborhoods in which this is what the 'Plaintiff 'Powell" will show at the trial.
21. Discrimination does enter the loan process. Studies have found both black and white applicants can have the same imperfections in loan applications, it has been found lenders seem more willing to overlook flaws for white applicants than for applicants of color. HMDA reveals more and more that many individual lenders
in many different cities exhibit disparities in approval and denial rates that are far greater than the average rates for their metropolitan area.
22. Discrimination denies a substantial segment of black neighborhoods a basic form of wealth accumulation and investment through home ownership and business.
23. When lawyers examined loan files under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) they uncovered disturbing evidence that bank employees were providing assistance to white applicants that they were not providing to African-Americans.

( 6)
24. Loan officers often did not help people of color applicants explain negative information on their credit reports and document all of their income, similiar loan officer behavior was responsible for the inordinately high denial rate of AfricanAmerican applicants.
25. Lenders are now using 'Automated Credit Scoring Systems" for underwriting more and more credit products. These systems have been used for many years for credit card underwriting, are also now being used by lenders making home mortgage, home improvement, and even business loan underwriting decisions. These credit scoring
systems hold out the promise of promoting fairer lending practices because they purport to use objective, mathematical models for identifying and measuring those factors that demonstratively predict credit performance in place of discretionary-decision -making that can be infected by bias and discrimination. Do? Those who develop and use credit scoring factors or the overall systems have a disparate adverse impact on people of color and other borrowers in protected classes? This is being challenged in courts across the United States.
26. Plaintiff 'Powell applied for business, personal and a mortgage loan. Various reasons were given. Just as the availability of credit to purchase, refinance, and improve our homes is critical to the well-being oflocal neighborhoods, so is the availability of credit for small businesses. Lack of access to capital has been one of the formation and development of African-Americans businesses. Lenders do not keep records for business it is time they do. Discrimination prevails in the business lending as well.

( 7)
27. African-American applicants are put in positions of humiliating circumstances. Explanations would be given if they had blemish credit that could justify the reason, no consideration was considered and the loans were denied.
28. Studies and Reports are now finding or have found that African-Americans are twice as likely as whites to have loan applications rejected in all aspect of lending.
29. Racial and Credit Discrimination is immoral and illegal. Discrimination is also costly. There is a far greater chance that African-Americans will face outright denial of financing or denial of financing at competitive rates than will white applicants with virtually identical qualifications ( good or bad).
30. Federal banking regulators are supposed to evaluate lending records every other year. Banks are rated on 12 factors. Only three have anything to do with where loans are actually made and whether banks locate branches or lend money in poor neighbor hoods. Three other factors relate only to paperwork.
31. A central tenet of U.S. Civil Rights law is that practices which do not intentionally or directly discriminate against people of African descent may nonetheless be unlawful under certain circumstances if they have discriminatory effects.

( 8)
32. The majority of courts take a position that, despite the presence of valid justification for rejecting an applicant, if race is a factor in the decision making process, the rejection is discriminatory.
33. The concept of equal treatment contained in 1982, like title VIII, suggest a greater concern for results and not just equal opportunity, which pervades the history of the "Fourteenth Amendment". In which it should not be applied just for "Equal Laws" it should be applied as equal results.
34. The Plaintiff 'Powell' is of a protected class. 35. Those who impact their power (whites) should not be in positions whereas they can
impact one's life or lifestyle. Life, Liberty, Property.
36. Covert discrimination is becoming more and more apparent. African-Americans are charged higher interest rates than whites, charged higher insurance premiums, denied loans at a higher rate than whites, Denied employment due to race or a name. These covert deceptive practices cannot continue. Covert discrimination continues to plague our nation.
37. Banks have only been concerned about passing the next exam. The 70's regulators expected banks to appoint Compliance Officers, maintain compliance management machinery, and follow the rules with accuracy, meeting regulators expectations and
achieving a "clean exam" have been 90% of the focus of compliance.

( 9)
38. Times are a changing, Exams account for a shrinking share of the risks banks face in connection with consumers laws and regulations. Litigation from government players other than the primary regulator, which harms reputation and brand name value, presents a growing threat.
39. Plaintiff "Powell" is not asking the banking system to issue bad loans, nor are people of African descent looking for a hand-out. We want the same respect and equal treatment as any other race.
40. Covert discrimination is being challenged more and more i.e. testers, federal and state agencies, activist news reporters, Internet traffic, and the like. The triggering practice or action is increasingly something that was not explicity prohibited.
41. Plaintiff 'Powell' considers bank practices services quite simply, leaves many people of color confused and feel abused. Some customers or applicants actually will be abused by unscrupulous players. This growth of abuse by lenders and its employees is going to lead, inevitably, to a political and legal response as consumers,
customers, applicants tum to lawyers, themselves, elected representatives, and regulators for redress. They will also tum to other players that influence those entities such as consumers and community groups and the media. In this instance it is the Plaintiff "Powell" who has initiate this action.
42. Bankers must stop relying on the examiners. They must take responsibility for monitoring and managing. If so, a look at the greater risk is in order.

( 10 )
43. Fair Lending stop credit discrimination, redlining, higher interest rates (predatory lending), denial of business, personal and mortgage loans, no credit bad credit, co-signer, no collateral these are all covert discriminative practices to keep blacks from obtaining equal financial status.
44. Recent Justice Department litigation have involved Loan Pricing, Pricing on Mortgage, Small Business, Consumer Loans where lending personnel have authority to negotiate. Similarly, risk based pricing creates the potential for discrimination charges if the outcomes produce higher prices, higher denial for African-American
women, or other protected groups. In which another Fair Lending risk: the growing use of credit scoring and how scoring or mixed scoring /judgmental systems are implemented.
45. Bankers, Lending Institutions, should not ignore a potential consumer because of race or gender. There is a fairness problem that is visible in the Banking System. It is not good ethics nor good treatment, nor equal treatment of the customer.
46. The Plaintiff 'Powell" brings this complaint to the court under her first Amendment constitutional right, The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
47. Plaintiff 'Powell" also petitions the court under the seventh Amendment to a 'Right of a jury trial in which the opposing parties will attempt to prevent.
48. Plaintiff 'Powell ' also knows the 13th amendment was enacted to abolish slavery, the effects still permeate our society.

( 11 ) 49. Banks have sly disguised their covert deceptive practices. The 15th Amendment
was enacted to keep states from denying negroes the right to vote. Negroes were not allowed to vote because whites would make up things ( i.e. literacy, grandfather clause poll tax and even lynching )to deny blacks the right to vote. It states: The right of all United States Citizens shall not be denied or abridged by the U.S. or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Today, whites use legal "But" undertones of discrimination ( i.e. Bad credit, no credit, no collateral, co-signer and whatever else they can create.) for African-American today this is their denial.
50. To deny or abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States is also inclusive of the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution.
51. The 10th Amendment preserves for the people and the states all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution..
52. Plaintiff 'Powell believes the practice of covert discrimination has had a long standing and it must come to an end. Discrimination in any form must be stopped from the highest position to the lowest. Discrimination hurts all not just one race.
Discrimination can be bold or suttle the worst is suttle. To sit back and say or do nothing only allows the covert discriminative practices to continue. 53. The covert discrimination has been around for years and it was even in the senate
and there are many more Trent Lotts who have not been found out.

( 12 ) 54. All defendant banks have or has employed few African-Americans in their place of
employment. BSB Bank has at one time employed over ( 5 ) African-Americans as tellers low paying jobs. None at upper management levels. They have a AfricanAmerican woman in their bank that sits behind a desk, I am not really sure what position she holds. There was or still is another African-American woman who works on one of the top floors to date I do not know what position she holds. Out of all of the employees they employ about ( 300 or more) there has only been about 10-20 African-Americans. HSBC bank employs on African-American female and the position she holds is in the mortgage department. It has been stated their President of the bank is African-American. Ifhe is, then he is just as guilty of allowing his bank to practice discriminative practices. African-Americans can be just as hateful toward one another too!
55. The other defendants NBT, Beneficial, Citifinancial, American General, have never employed African-Americans in their business. They have given few loans not many to African-Americans in which at trial the HMDA and other information will be brought out at trial.
56. Defendant Charter One Bank had employed one African-American. To date there has been no others.
57. If these entities discriminate in employment practices, it should never be assumed they would not discriminate in the loan decisions.
58. In this area (Binghamton) it is said there is a small population of People of Color. People of Color are not the minority.

( 13 ) 59. The rate of People of Color is growing. It is just these entities (Banking) is choosing
to ignore individuals and neighborhoods of color. The practice cannot continue.
60. The policies and practices described in the preceding paragraphs have achieved the intended racial impact, as demonstrated by statistics revealing the number of home mortgage applications, personal and business loans.
61. Other business practices utilized by the defendants at least until the Plaintiff "Powell" did her investigation, furthered the objective of servicing white residential areas and not servicing residential areas in which African-Americans reside.
62. The banking system continues to violate the Equal Credit Opportunity Act 15 U.S.C. 1691 (a) (1) discriminating against applicants with respect to credit transactions, on the basis of race, in violation of the ECOA 15 U.S.C. ( 1691) (a) (1).
63. Defendants policies or practices as alleged herein constitute:
A. A pattern or practice of resistance to full enjoyment of rights secured by the Equal Credit Opportunity Act 15 U.S.C. 1691 e (h) and
B. A denial of rights granted by the ECOA, 14th Amendment and the 15th Amendment to a group of persons that raises an issue of general public importance.
64. Persons who have been victims of defendants discriminatory policies and practices are aggrieved in this instance it is the Plaintiff "Powell". Persons as defined in 42 U.S.C. 2602(i) and have suffered damages as a result of the defendants conduct an issue of general public importance.

( 14 ) 65. The racially discriminatory policies and practices of defendants were, and are,
intentional and willful, and have been implemented with reckless disregard for the rights of residents who are African-American.
66. Plaintiff 'Powell' declares that the totality of the policies and practices of defendants constitute a violation of title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Violates the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 1977, 15 U.S.C. 1691-1691(f) Violates Code of Federal Regulations ( Fair Credit) ( Regulation B & Z ) ( 12CFR 202 & 226) Credit Discrimination, Violates the United States Constitution of (1791) (To guarantee the citizens basic individual liberties). Violation of the 7th Amendment (Right of Trial by jury). Violation ofthe 9th Amendment (no natural rights abridged
merely because they were not enumerated in the preceding eight amendments). Violation of the 14th Amendment (no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States nor deprive oflife ,liberty, and property). Violation of the 15th Amendment (barring states from denying the vote to blacks (i.e. literacy, poll tax, grandfather clause and lynching). Today their denial to blacks is in the form of (i.e. bad credit, no credit history, lack of collateral, co-signer). There is no second chance for AfricanAmericans. Failure to Comply with Applicable State and Federal Laws, Violation of Banking Regulation Laws.

( 15 )
WHEREFORE, Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b) Plaintiff 'Powell" request that a jury decide defendants liability under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act 15US.C. 1691 1691(f). and Violation of Banking Regulations under the Code of Federal Rules (Fair Credit and Credit Discrimination) (12CFR 202 & 12CFR226) (Regulation B & Z). and Violation of Title VIII Civil Rights Act of 1968, Violations of the US. Constitution Of 1791, Violations ofthe 7th,9th,14th, and 15th amendment. For the pattern or practice of racial discrimination alleged herein and the amount of damages owed to the victim of defendants discrimination. Furthermore, the Plaintiff 'Powell" request that the court issue an appropriate injunctive order, including a prospective remedial plan to correct the effects of defendants past discrimination and bring the defendants into compliance with Federal Fair Lending Law, and assess appropriate civil money penalties as to each defendant. WHEREFORE, The Plaintiff 'Powell" prays the court enter an order that: 1. Declares that the totality of the policies and practices of defendants constitutes a
violation of Title VIII of The Civil Rights Act of 1968 as amended by the Fair Housing Act of 1988,42 U.S.c. 3601-3619, Equal Credit Opportunity Act 15 U.S.C.16911691(f) , Violation of Banking Regulations under the Code of Federal Rules (Fair Credit and Credit Discrimination) (12CFR 202 & 12CFR226) (Regulation B & Z), Violation of The US. Constitution of 1791, Amendments 7th,9th,14th, and 15th, Failure to Comply with Applicable State and Federal Laws.

.' ( 16 )
2. Enjoins defendants, their agents, employees, and successors, and all other persons in active concert or participation with them, from discriminating on account of race, in any aspect of their business practices;
3. Require defendants to develop and submit to the court for its approval a detailed plan that (a) defines a service area for defendants business without regard to race and provides policies and procedures to ensure all segments of the defined area are served without regard to race, and (b) remedies the vestiges of defendants' discriminatory
policies and practices;
4. Award such damages as decided by ajury that would fully compensate the victim of defendants discriminatory policies and practices; and
5. Defendants to actively participate in hiring more African-American in their place of employment, Funding and supporting programs and to work more with non-profit grass root organizations of color to assist in implementing programs to help African-American i.e. Housing Programs, Educational Programs, Entrepreneur Programs and more. To implement loan monitoring (second or Third Review) when a African-American applys for a loan.
6. Award punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a jury to the victims of defendants discriminatory policies and practices; and
7. Assess a civil penalty against each defendant, in order to vindicate the public interest. The Plaintiff "Powell" further prays for such additional relief as the interests ofjustice

may reqUIre..

( 17 )
~~~ ~~""~\ ~NJ ~
lriya R':'--PoweU:'PrOSe \ % nable Organization 60 Court Street Binghamton, New York 13901 ( 607) 773-3413

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

 
 b' .(

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Tonya R. Powell, Plaintiff

Civil Action No: 3:02-CV-160S

)

v.

AT O'CLOCK,_ _-

La~Baennan, Clerll- Bing~on

AMENDED

American General Beneficial BSB Bank, Charter One Bank Citifinancial HSBC Bank M& TBank NBT Bank,
Defendants

COMPLAINT
(1) Violation of State and Federal Banking Laws and Statues 912CFR202 &226 ( Reg B & Z) ( Fair Lending Laws and Credit Discrimination)
(2) Violation of the United States Constitution (1791) 7th,9th,10th, 14th,15th Amendments (denial)
( 3) Violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1968

( 4) Violation of Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 U.S.c. 1691-1691(t)
( 5 ) Violation of 7th Amendment ( Right of trial by jury) Demand For Jury Trial
( 6 ) Violations of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 ( 12 U.S.c. 2901-2906)

l' ,

I

-";,

.~.

Comes now the Plaintiff in the named case as alleges as follows: This action is brought by the Plaintiff 'Powell" to enforce the Provisions of the Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Equal Credit Opportunity Act ,15 U.S.c. 1691-1691(f) Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 ( 12 U.S.C. 2901-2906). United States Constitution (I791) Violations of the 7th, 9th, ,14th,15th Amendments. Violations to Comply with State and Federal Banking Laws Regulations (B & Z) . This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.c. 3614,and 15 U.S.c. 1691 (h). 1. At all times herein, Plaintiff 'PowellII was a resident of the County of Broome,
State of New York, and resided at 60 Court Street,. City of Binghamton. 2. At all times herein, American General, Beneficial,BSB Bank, Charter One,
Citifmancial, M & T Bank, NBT Bank Defendants is a federally insured bank doing business in the State ofNew York. Their business includes regularly extending credit, including personal and commercial loans. The bank also
~.
extends credit for home improvement, purchase for mobile home loans which are residential real-estate related transactions as defined in the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.c. 3605 (b) (1). As a federally insured lending institution (Banks) is subject to federal laws governing Fair Lending, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act, and the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 ( 12 U.S.C. 2901-2906). The Community Reinvestment Act ,12 U.S.c. 2901 et seq., and its implementing regulations, 12 C.F.R 354 seq., require Defendants to meet the credit needs of the entire community in which it operates, including the credit needs of low-to-moderate income areas in the community.
3. The Defendant(s) American General branch in Vestal headquarters Indiana,

( 2 )
(2) Benefical branch in Vestal headquarters in Chicago, BSB Bank branch in Binghamton,NY headquarters in Binghamton, NY. 3. Charter One Bank branch in Binghamton, 4. Citifmancial,branch in 10hnson City and Endicott, Headquarters in Baltimore, MD,(5) HSBC Bank locations in Binghamton, headquarters in Buffalo,NY (6)M & T Bank branches in Binghamton and Endicott headquarters located in Buffalo. (7) NBT branches in Port Dick and Maine ,NY headquarters in Norwich.
4. Plaintiff had applied to all of the above named defendants for credit business, personal and a home mortgage loan all were denied no second review. Explanation given No credit, No collateral, Co-signer.
5. The Plaintiff 'Powell" does believe the above banks did not want to work with her is because of her gender and skin color. Upon the Plaintiff 'Powell' asking for another review the decision did not change.
6. Banks for years have been getting away with "unfair business practices". The practice is a continuance from the illegal business practice they used in the early 1900's to keep negroes from obtaining home loans and from voting. If whites did allow negroes to buy home they were the shabbiest homes and paid outrageous prices (higher interest rates). The insurance coverage on the homes was twice that of whites.
7. The defendants continue to deny access oflife, liberty, and property to individuals and families of African descent. Denying them expectancy of "economic advantage or benefit.

... ,
( 3)
8. The right for the Plaintiff "Powell" to pursue a lawful business, property, or anything else she is entitled to enjoy the fruits and advantages of one's industry and efforts are rights which the law protects against unjustified and wrongful interference by another person.
10. The constitution of the United States is tfie 'Supreme" law of the land" and is itself a law for which it is the duty of all the courts" high and low" , both state and national to sustain and enforce as they do all other laws. Even if wording oflaw or ruling is constitutionally correct, if it is not applied equally it is unconstitutional.
11. The First Amendment, including specifically the right to petition the court, is incorporated against the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.
12. The judiciary Act of 1789 provides that: In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct cases therein, 28 U.S.C.1654 this ancient protection is rooted in the fundamental principles of our jurisprudence. The right to proceed pro se is a fundamental statutory right that is afforded the highest degree of protection in which Plaintiff 'Powell" brings this civil action.
13. The business practices of the defendant(s) are and always have been illegal for many years.
14. Defendants counsel may argue that these laws do not apply to the banking system.

!
( 4) 15. The Nineth Amendment states; "Rule of Construction" of the constitution.
That no natural rights are abridged merely because they were not enumerated in the preceding eight amendments of the 'Bill of Rights" by the people. 16. The banking system has artfully ,dexterous in doing business secretly or cunning in evading detection by denying African-Americans access to credit and the economic up climb for many years. Their actions are very selective.
17. It was not until the ratification of the 14th Amendment that Federal Courts were granted a weapon to enforce many of the guarantees stated in the first ten amendments upon state jurisdicitions.
18. Opening the book on lending discrimination is nothing new. Many years explicit discrimination in mortgage, business, auto lending was and always have been a broader pattern of racial discrimination. The early 1900 in segregation banks would not loan money to blacks for home, auto, personal loans. Even insurance coverage the interest rates were outrageous.
19. Discrimination against people of color by lenders has been a long-standing civil rights concern as well as a constitutional concern in the United States. Both Title Vlll of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1977, commonly called the 'Fair Lending Laws" prohibit discrimination against applicants who apply for credit if their race is not white.

( 5) 20. To the court. What damage has the Plaintiff 'Powell' sustained? The Plaintiff 'Powell"s
Debt to ratio was not a problem the loan request were not large, and the Plaintiff 'Powell Would have been able to pay the loan back. 21. Plaintiff' Powell" is ofa protected class under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A woman Who is African-American.
22. The Plaintiff 'Powell' applied for a loan from American-General on or about
'<!\\KllU k1n,2003 the loan was denied.
I 23. The Plaintiff" Powell applied for a loan from Beneficial on or about}uf\lOrU j,~,2003
\
The loan was denied.
24. The Plaintiff Powell" applied for a loan and a charitable donation from BSB Bank On or about "h-lll<ll\.j fd!I\\:,2003 both were denied.
j
25. The Plaintiff Powell" applied for mortgage loan from Charter One Bank on or about
h \or UC\r u ~ 2003 the loan was denied.
\
26. The Plaintiff "Powell" applied for a Personal loan from Citifinancial on or about
fi.bn.\PI'u ID"'\h ,2003. loan was denied.
\

( 6)

27. The Plaintiff 'Powell' applied for a business expansion loan from HSBC Bank on or about %<g ro\=g \' q\h,2002 loan was denied.

28. The Plaintiff 'Powell' applied for a business expansion loan from M & T Bank on or about
-;Sonl (In1i\~ 2003 loan denied
\
29. The Plaintiff 'Powell" applied for a business expansion loan from NBT Bank on or about

\r® -:)00\,(11 \J

2003 loan denied

\

30. The defendants never considered the information the Plaintiff 'Powell submitted, never Considered her debt/ratio. The Plaintiff 'Powell" truly believes there was economic Discrimination and statistical discrimination.

31. The defendants know as -well- as the Plaintiff "Powell" as a matter of statistical discrimination African - American small business owners face or have bankruptcy rates that were at least double Those of white business owners. The rate is high due to the covert practices of those who work In the banking industry holding on to the wrong perceptions about the credit risk of people of Color and not realizing they are the cause of the high rate of faltering businesses in the Community of color.

32. If the Plaintiff "Powell cannot obtain capital or access to credit soon, she will become another Who will be delinquent on personal and business obligations. This only happens merely, The covert thinking of individuals that companies hire who think less of people who are not white. Because of this, African-Americans will be in the category of legal judgments, delinquency payments, bankruptcy, slow payments etc. This is all due to the deprivation of equal access to credit or capital. In which the defendants have done quite well. They must stop the covert economic and statistical discrimination and denying individuals like the Plaintiff equal access to credit or capital.

( 7)
33. Webster dictionary defines discrimination ( "to make a difference in treatment on the basis of Other than personal merit. Simply said it means treating people differently. Plaintiff" Powell Understands not all discrimination is illegal.
34. Discrimination is the arbitrary denial of an individuals abiltiy to succeed based on someones Perception of a group's inferiority or risk. This is wnat the banking system has done and still Doing. The individuals who are employed by the defendants their covert motives it is Perceived superiority of one group over others that is at the core of discrimination.
35. These types of perceptions do much damge to the Plaintiff 'Powell" and others who similarly Like her
36. If the defendants are not willing to allow or even bail buasinesses of color out, therefore they Will fall into the risk base category, due to the lack of access to capital or credit. In which Many business of color have had to literally struggle on their own, in this case this is what The Plaintiff' has done for years, not being given the opportunity to even expand.
37. The Defendents actions violate the basic belief that everyone given the opportunity to succeed. Once we begin accepting reasons to discriminate, then who decides what reason is acceptable And who will be discriminated against. No one wants to be the receiving end of discriminatory Behavior. It has always been people of color who have been at the receiving end.
38. Plaintiff 'Powell' has received that discriminatory end.
38. Plaintiff' Powell' feel she has been victimized by the defendants and files her grivance with this court. The Plaintiff' Powell" believes the actions of the defendants have violated her 'Constitutional Rights' under the law.

8 )
39. The defendants have deprived liberty to obtain economic rights to be able to support one self in Business as well as ones household.
40. The defendants must understand that equal protection is not about leveling the playing field by Turning everyone to clones. It's about maintaining decent social stratification system which allows As many people as possible to achieve their fullest potential. The Plaintiff 'Powell" cannot reach this Full potential due to the defendants social bias of a underclass.
41. Denial rates have always been higher for blacks than whites mainly in a protected class in which the Plaintiff is protected under.
42. It has been stated and documented in the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council National Survey of Small Business Finances, Department of Justice, HMDA, black businesses Had a higher denial rate 2112 times the rate of white business owners. The standard for fair lending In the Binghamton and Broome County area is haphazard.
43. The courts can see that the Plaintiff 'Powell" has applied to most of the banks in the area and all have Not given a second look or a counteroffer for any of the loan request the Plainitff 'Powell" has Applied for.
44. Plaintiff" Powell" disparate treatment is because she is black or African-American. The disparate Impact comes when the Plaintiff 'Powell' has applied for a loan may receive equivalent treatment But the lending policy has a disparate effect on her and others similarly situated.
45. The Plaintiff 'Powell" applied for small loans In which low value loans are rejected more frequent~y. Under a minimum loan amount policy.
46. To the court it must be recognized, the Plaintiff 'Powell" has been subjected to discriminatory Conduct that is subtle or masked. The individuals the Plaintiff 'Powell" has encountered will not Openly admitt their covert perceptions they have of someone to be considered a sub species. They will not admit they are motivated by bias or prejudice, and discrimination is often Accomplished through indirect means. Since it is often diffcult to prove the unspoken motive.

( 9) 47. The defendants will assert an ostensibly non discriminatory reason to justify discriminatory acts or
Practices. The defendants will attempt to show reasons why a rejection was in accordance with some Legitimate nondiscriminatory policy.
48. The Plaintiff petitions the court to investigate circumstances surrounding the purported reason, Including an analysis of the class impact of that reason as well as the business purpose it allegedly Serves. It is relevant in examining for "pretextual discrimination, to consider an institution's General policy and practice with respect to blacks, as well as the historical backgrounds of the Decisions or practice in question.
49. This question is presented to the court. 'Why" is it, so many black businesses and mortgage loans Are either defaulted on, or denied and many become bankrupt, judgments, late payments, etc?
50. The defendants have not improved their lending laws in which all of this can be shown at trial in Statistical data. The defendants lending laws to avoid charges of "purposeful" discrimination the Defendants must exercise a reasonable degree of precaution and self - examination.
51. Plaintiff" Powell" realizes the defendants may regularly deal with many people in the course of Extending credit The defendants rely upon information supplied by credit bureaus, appraisers,brokers and their own employees may contribute substantantially to a final decision about the applicants credit -worthiness. The defendants employees can cause the defendants to be liable for their discriminatory practice if members of a protected class are as a matter of practice subject to more stringent or onerous requirements. The Plaintiff 'Powell" believes this has happened to her.
52. The defendants rely on much information from their front line credit officers also known as loan Officers and their subjective evaluation. The Plaintiff" Powell" does believe the actions of the Defendants employees were bias and none of them considered the 'Plaintiff "Powell' application.
53. The Plaintiff'Powell" need for financing is a critical and pernnial concern for small business owners Indeed. Few things are as crucial to the health of a small business operation. The Plaintiff 'Powell's Small business is launched by the personal resources she has put in the business.

10)
54. The Plaintiff 'Powell , economic resources can quickly reach the stage where she must look to the Credit market for financial help in expanding operations. Sometimes not wanting to ask for Assistance for the credit market for fear of rejection in which this is exactly what has happened. The Plaintiff 'Powell' was looking for help and was turned down causing the Plaintiff 'Powell ' Much emotional distress and mental anguish. The' Plaintiff "Powell" is trying to keep her Business going. But if the business should fail, it would not be the Plaintiff Powell's lack of Mismanagement, it would be due to the deprivation, denial, and the covert discrimination of The banking system not allowing equal access to credit or capital.
55. The Plaintiff 'Powell , petitions the court to "stop" this unequal treatment in the banking system. The banking system is not being asked to make unsound loans, what they are being asked is be Equally fair. There is a gap in denial rates to reduced flexibility on the part of lenders when Confronted with less than perfect people of color applications afflicted with imperfections relative To that for white applications also afflicted for the same imperfections.
56. The defendants review income, credit histories, and other relevant components of "creditworthiness" are correlated with racial characteristics is acknowledged widely. The Plaintiff 'Powell has been impacted with hidden covert discrimination. The defendants Can be induced to discriminate against members of a given population group in ways Indistinguishable from those practiced by the most vehement advocates of racial hiarchy.
57. The Plaintiff 'Powell has faced "economic discrimination" by the banks in this civil case. Overall The statistical evidence and other information presented or will be presented will indicate that Blacks face a significant disadvantage in the market place. The defendants practices range from the Obvious to subtle and from prejudice to ignorance of the law. Whites are given second chances With blemished credit, people of color are not. Whites with good credit receive loans, people of Color with good crdit do not, or if they do are charged higher rates.

11)
58. The lending practices of the defendants discriminatory intent or application still have disparate Impacts on the Plaintiff'Powell" and other like her. The defendants know "credit history" Information on applicants- a key element in lending decisions -did not have to be reported to Federal regulators so it couldn't be evaluated."
59. The defendants did not consider the information the Plaintiff "Powell" did submit. The monies Generated came from the hard work of the Plainitff'Powell" without the assistance of the banking System. "There does come a time when businesses or individuals will need the assistance of The banking system. When the Plaintiff 'Powell' does tum to the banking system for assistance In credit or capital, she still is perceived by the defendants as a risk in lending in which they Still compare my race with creditworthiness.
60. The Plaintiff 'Powell' contnues to be damaged by or a adverse impact of the decisions the defendants Have made. The Plaintiff 'Powell" is of a protected class. The defendants do corrolate race with Creditworthiness. The defendants do not give people of a protected class the opportunity rather their Credit is good, nor do they give them a second chance with blemished credit even if it was three, five, Ten years or more. The reasons are long, and their practice of deprivation of property, sustaining a
Business must stop! The Plaintiff 'Powell" petitions the court for racially discriminatory practices And policies the defendants so rightfully protect.
61. The Plaintiff 'Powell' will prove at trial the disparate impact the defendants have done to the Plaintiff 'Powell' and others similarly situated. Denial rates for small business credit market is considerably larger than that found in the mortgage market. Blacks were denied business credit 26.9% compared to 65.9% for whites.
62. The defendants want to create damage to the Plaintiff 'Powell' by depriving her of liberty to be able to Enjoy the fruits oflife.

- - - ----------~-

.~--~------------------------

( 12 )
63. The damage caused the Plaintiff 'Powell' is economic damage and emotional and mental damage. No one can understand what a individual faces when they try to prevent oneself from losing a Business, or trying to obtain a home. If the Plaintiff 'Powell' is not able to obtain equal access To economic prosperty by being deprived of access to credit it will cause loss of income to sustain
Her business. The money earned from the business is what sustains her in her home life, bills, car Payments, food, utilities, clothing, etc. If denial to credit or capital to sustain her livilihood is what Causes most businesses of color to fall in the area of bankruptcy, slow payments, delinquent accounts, Foreclosures, judgments, and other. The defendants know the cause and effect of what can and has Happened to individuals and communites of color the disparate impact it causes when the access to Credit or capital is deprived.
64. The practices of the defendants upon the Plainitff' 'Powell" is racially discriminatory policies and Practices were, and are intentional and willful, and have been implemented with reckless disregard For the rights of the Plaintiff 'Powell'.
WHEREFORE, Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b) Plaintiff 'Powell' request that ajury Decide defendants liablity under
1. Equal Credit Opportunity Act 15 U.S.C. 1691 1691(f) for the covert discriminatory practice of denial Or disparate treatment of access to capital or credit. Economic discrimination. Depriving Plaintiff' Powell equal treatment or equal access to expand her business. In which based on statastical evidence Blacks are turned down disproportionately more than whites. Thus causing her economic restraint.
2. Violation of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 ( 12 U.S.C. 2901-2906) The defendants have not been adhereing to this law, They have not been doing Business in the communities of color. The Plainitff 'Powell' is just one of them.
3. Violation of State and Federal Banking Laws and Statues (912CFR202 & 226) (Reg B & Z) (Fair Lending Laws and Credit Discrimination).

( 13)
Their practice of disparate access to fair lending of capital to individuals and credit discrimination they Have committed against the Plaintiff 'Powell'.
4. Violation of the United States Constitution ( 1791) 7th, 9th,lOth, 14th,15th(denial). The defendants will try to deny access to the courts preventing the Plainitff 'Powell' of the right of Trial by jury. The Plaintiff Powell ask ofthe court to be fair and impartial. The Plaintiff Powell's Natural rights should not be abridged because they were not mentioned in the preceeding eight Amendments. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges, or Immunities of the citizens of the United States nor deprive life, liberty, and property. The Defendants practices have been doing this fopr many years, and now are denying the Plaintiff Powell of these protected rights. Some powers are reserved to the people of the United States. The 15th amendment was enacted to protect blacks for voting due to the illegal tactics whites would Use to keep blacks from voting i.e. (grandfather clause, poll tax, literacy). Today it is (bankruptcy, Deliquency,judgments etc.) even ifit is three, five, ten years ago.
5. Violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1968
The right of all people regarding enjoyment of life, liberty, property, protection. The right To enjoy the benefits of a democratic society, such as equal access to credit or capital and Equal and fair treatment by the courts. The Plaintiff 'Powell 'petitions the court for protection From the covert disparate treatment the defendants have caused. The protection of the denial of Equal access to credit and capital, and the prtection from the wrongs the defendants have Committed by denying the Plaintiff 'Powell the liberty she is entitled to.

14
\
59. The rate of People of Color is growing. It is just these entities ( Banking) is choosing to ignore individuals and neighborhoods of color. The practice cannot continue.
60. The policies and practices described in the preceding paragraphs have achieved the intended racial impact, as demonstrated by statistics reveahng the number of home mortgage applications, personal and business loans.
61. Other business practices utilized by the defendants at least until the Plaintiff "Powell" did her investigation, furthered the objective of servicing white residential areas, and not servicing residential areas in which African-Americans reside.
62. The banking system continues to violate the Equal Credit Opportunity Act 15 V.S.c. 1691 (a) (1) discriminating against applicants with respect to credit transactions, on the basis of race, in violation of the ECOA 15 U.S.C. ( 1691) (a) (1).
63. Defendants policies or practices as alleged herein constitute:
A. A pattern or practice of resistance to full enjoyment of rights secured by the Equal Credit Opportunity Act 15 U.S.c. 1691 e (h) and
B. A denial of rights granted by the ECOA, 14th Amendment and the 15th Amendment to a group of persons that raises an issue of general public importance.
64. Persons who have been victims of defendants discriminatory policies and practices are aggrieved in this instance it is the Plaintiff "Powell". Persons as defmed in 42 U.S.c. 2602(i) and have suffered damages as a result of the defendants conduct an issue of general public importance.

15 (
2. Enjoins defendants, their agents, employees, and successors, and all other persons in active concert or participation with them, from discriminating on account of race, in any aspect of their business practices;
3. Require defendants to develop and submit to the court for its approval a detailed plan that (a) defines a service area for defendants business without regard to race and provides policies and procedures to ensure all segments of the defined area are served without regard to race, and (b) remedies the vestiges of defendants' discriminatory policies and practices;
4. Award such damages as decided by ajury that would fully compensate the victim of defendants discriminatory policies and practices; and
5. Defendants to actively participate in hiring more African-American in their place of employment, Funding and supporting programs and to work more with non-profit grass root organizations of color to assist in implementing programs to help African-American i.e. Housing Programs, Educational Programs, Entrepreneur Programs and more. To implement loan monitoring (second or Third Review) when a African-American applys for a loan.
6. Award punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a jury to the victims of defendants discriminatory policies and practices; and
7. Assess a civil penalty against each defendant, in order to vindicate the public interest. The Plaintiff"Powell" further prays for such additional relief as the interests of justice

( 16
65. The racially discriminatory policies and practices of defendants were, and are, intentional and willful, and have been implemented with reckless disregard for the rights of residents who are African-American.
66. Plaintiff'Powell' declares that the totality of the policies and practices of defendants constitute a violation of title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Violates the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 1977, 15 U.S.C. 1691-1691(f) Violates Code of Federal Regulations ( Fair Credit) ( Regulation B & Z ) ( 12CFR 202 & 246) Credit Discrimination, Violates the United States Constitution of (1791) (To guarantee the citizens basic individual liberties). Violation of the 7th Amendment (Right of Trial by jury). Violation of the 9th Amendment (no natural rights abridged merely because they were not enumerated in the preceding eight amendments). Violation ofthe 14th Amendment (no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States nor
deprive oflife ,liberty, and property). Violation of the 15th Amendment (barring states from denying the vote to blacks (i.e. literacy, poll tax, grandfather clause and lynching). Today their denial to blacks is in the form of (i.e. bad credit, no credit history, lack of collateral, co-signer). There is no second chance for AfricanAmericans. Failure to Comply with Applicable State and Federal Laws, Violation of Banking Regulation Laws.

.
! '
I'
17
WHEREFORE, Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b) Plaintiff 'Powell" request that a jury decide defendants liability under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act 15U.S.C. 1691 1691(t). and Violation of Banking Regulations under the Code of Federal Rules (Fair Credit and Credit Discrimination) (12CFR 202 & 12CFR226) (Regulation B & Z). and Violation of Title VIII Civil Rights Act of 1968, Violations of the U.S. Constitution Of 1791, Violations of the 7th,9th,14th, and 15th amendment. For the pattern or practice ofracial discrimination all~ged herein and the amount of damages owed to the victim of defendants discrimination. Furthermore, the Plaintiff 'Powell" request that the court issue an appropriate injunctive order, including a prospective remedial plan to correct the effects of defendants past discrimination and bring the defendants into compliance with Federal Fair Lending Law, and assess appropriate civil money penalties as to each defendant. WHEREFORE, The Plaintiff 'Powell" prays the court enter an order that: 1. Declares that the totality of the policies and practices of defendants constitutes a
violation of Title VIII of The Civil Rights Act of 1968 as amended by the Fair Housing Act of 1988,42 U.S.c. 3601-3619, Equal Credit Opportunity Act 15 U.S.C.l6911691(t), Violation of Banking Regulations under the Code of Federal Rules (Fair Credit and Credit Discrimination) (12CFR 202 & 12CFR226) (Regulation B & Z), Violation of The U.S. Constitution of 1791, Amendments 7th,9th,14th, and 15th, Failure to Comply with Applicable State and Federal Laws.

, .·
( 18 )

The Plaintiff Powell ask of the court to grant Compensatory Damages in the amount of $ 150,000.00 to make the Plaintiff Powell whole.

The Plainitff ask of the court for Emotional Distress $ 50,000.00 for the mental unrest.

The Plaintiff ask of the court for Punitive Damages $250,00.00 for the wrongs the defendants practice.

To grant the Plainitff what is just and proper in the toal amount of $ 450,000.00 ( Four-Hundred & Fifty

Thousand Dollars.

For the court to grant what is just and proper for the Plaintiff.
~~~,~~~I\SJ ~
~~le Organization
60 Court Street Binghamton, New York 13901 ( 607) 773-3413

DEMAND OF TRIAL BY JURY

 
 United States District Court
Northern District of New York
CIVIL JUDGMENT

TANYA R. POWELL V.
AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE, et al.

CASE NUMBER: 3:02-cv-1605 (FJS)

[X] Decision by Court. This act ion came to t rial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED
That the Court denies as moot the [24] Motion for More Definite Statement, granting [28] Motion to Dismiss, granting [42] Motion to Dismiss, granting [34] Motion to Dismiss, granting [38] Motion to Dismiss, granting [40] Motion to Dismiss, granting [54] Motion to Dismiss.
All of the above pursuant to t he order of the Honorable Chief Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., dated the 22nd day of March 20 04.

MARCH 23rd, 2004 ______________________________ DATE

LAWRENCE K. BAERMAN ______________________________ CLERK OF COURT
______________________________ KARA LOONEY DEPUTY CLERK

 
 310 F.Supp.2d 481 (2004)
Tanya R. POWELL, Plaintiff, v.
AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE, INC., Beneficial, a.k.a. Household Finance Realty Corp., Inc., BSB Bank & Trust Co., Inc., NBT Bank, Charter One Bank, FSB, Citifinancial, Inc., HSBC Bank, Inc., and M & T Bank Corp., Inc., Defendants.
No. 3:02-CV-1605.
United States District Court, N.D. New York.
March 22, 2004.
482 *482 Tanya R. Powell, c/o Enable Organization, Binghamton, NY, Plaintiff Pro Se.
Hiscock & Barclay, LLP (Robert A. Barrer, Esq., of Counsel), Syracuse, NY, for Defendant American General Finance, Inc.
Philips, Lytle, Hitchcock, Blaine & Huber, LLP (Paul K. Stecker, Esq., of Counsel), Buffalo, NY, for Defendant Beneficial, a.k.a. Household Finance Realty Corp., Inc.
483 *483 Hinman, Howard & Kattell, LLP (Paul T. Sheppard, Esq., of Counsel), Binghamton, MI, for Defendants BSB Bank & Trust Co., Inc. and NBT Bank.
Harris Beach, LLP (Glenn M. Fjermedal, Esq., of Counsel), Pittsford, NY, for Defendant Charter One Bank, FSB.
Crane, Greene & Parente (David M. Cherubin, Esq., of Counsel), Albany, NY, for Defendant Citifinancial, Inc.
HSBC Bank General, Counsel's Office (Paul K. Holbrook, Esq., Scott D. Miller, Esq., of Counsel), Buffalo, NY, for Defendant HSBC Bank.
Buchanan, Ingersoll PC (Christopher P. Schueller, Esq., of Counsel), Buffalo, NY, for Defendant M & T Bank Corp.
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
SCULLIN, Chief Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court on December 31, 2002, alleging that Defendants engaged in unfair and discriminatory lending practices in violation of federal banking laws and the United States Constitution. More specifically, she alleges violations of the Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. She also alleges violations of the Fair Housing Act ("FHA"), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA"), the Community Reinvestment Act ("CRA"), and the Truth-in-Lending Act ("TILA"). See 42 U.S.C. § 3603; 15 U.S.C. § 1691; 12 U.S.C. § 2901; 15 U.S.C. § 1601;[1] respectively.
II. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, an African-American resident of Binghamton, filed her pro se complaint on December 31, 2002, and her amended complaint on February 26, 2003. She alleges that Defendants discriminated against her based on her gender and race by declining to extend her business credit, personal credit, or a home mortgage loan. She also

alleges that Defendants have systematically discriminated against African-Americans by denying them personal and business credit on the basis of race.
Presently before the Court are all Defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
III. DISCUSSION
A. Standard for Dismissal
In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court must accept the allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6); see also Burnette v. Carothers, 192 F.3d 52, 56 (2d Cir.1999). Hence, dismissal is appropriate only if "`it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'" Sheppard v. Beerman, 18 F.3d 147, 150 (2d Cir.1994) (citations omitted). This standard is "applied with particular strictness when the plaintiff complains of a civil rights violation." Branum v. Clark, 927 F.2d 698, 705 (2d Cir.1991) (citations omitted).
Where a litigant proceeds pro se, the court must construe the allegations in the complaint liberally and dismiss 484 the *484 complaint only where the litigant could prove no set of facts entitling her to relief. See Lerman v. Bd. of
Elections, 232 F.3d 135, 140 (2d Cir.2000).
With these standards in mind, the Court will address Plaintiff's claims.
B. Plaintiff's standing
Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to "cases and controversies." See, e.g., Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 94-95, 88 S.Ct. 1942, 20 L.Ed.2d 947 (1968). Part of this limitation on federal court jurisdiction requires that a plaintiff have standing to bring her claim. See id. at 99-100, 88 S.Ct. 1942. A plaintiff only has standing if she can show that she is "a proper party to request an adjudication of a particular issue ...." Id. at 100, 88 S.Ct. 1942. A plaintiff can demonstrate that she has standing by showing that (1) she has sustained an injury; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to a defendant's conduct; and (3) the injury may be redressed through the relief that the plaintiff seeks. See Fed. Election Comm'n v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 19, 118 S.Ct. 1777, 141 L.Ed.2d 10 (1998) (citations omitted). To demonstrate an injury, a plaintiff must show that she sustained an actual, concrete injury that is neither ""`conjectural or hypothetical.'"" Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (quotation omitted).
Defendant BSB Bank & Trust Co. ("BSB") asserts that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring her claim because she did not apply to it for credit. According to Defendant BSB, it has no record of Plaintiff applying for credit in January, 2003. Defendant BSB contends instead that Plaintiff solicited it for funds to support Enable Organization, a notfor-profit organization for which she has no authority to act.
Plaintiff has alleged that Defendants injured her by unlawfully denying her credit and potentially causing her business to fail. Furthermore, this Court can grant monetary relief for causes of action arising under the United States Constitution or federal banking laws and so Plaintiff's injury is redressible. Although Defendant BSB alleges that Plaintiff did not, in fact, apply to it for credit, such an argument attacks the viability of Plaintiff's claim, which is not at issue in this motion.[2] Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant BSB's motion to dismiss to the extent that it is based upon Plaintiff's lack of standing.
C. Plaintiff's claim under Regulation Z of TILA
485 TILA's Regulation Z protects consumers against predatory lending practices by *485 requiring lenders to disclose credit terms to borrowers. See Pechinski v. Astoria Fed. S & L Ass'n, 238 F.Supp.2d 640, 642 (S.D.N.Y.)

(citations omitted), aff'd, 345 F.3d 78 (2d Cir.2003). Regulation Z's provisions also restrict or ban certain creditor practices in the areas of account cancellation, collections, interest rates, solicitations, and bill error resolution. See 12 C.F.R. § 226.5 et seq. A plaintiff may state a cause of action under TILA by alleging a violation of one of its provisions. See Beaumont v. Citibank N.A., No. 01 Civ. 3393, 2002 WL 483431, *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2002). All Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's claims under TILA.[3]
Defendants point out that TILA protects consumers by requiring that banks and other creditors disclose credit terms to borrowers. See 15 U.S.C. § 1602(u). According to Defendants, they never extended any credit to Plaintiff at any time, and so she cannot state a claim under the statute.[4] Moreover, Defendant Citifinancial ("Citi") claims that, even if it had discriminated against Plaintiff based on her race, TILA does not create a cause of action for discrimination.
Plaintiff asserts only that Defendants denied credit to her and to other African-Americans on the basis of race.
Although the language of TILA does not explicitly restrict the coverage of the statute to an existing credit account, the provisions of the statute demonstrate that Congress framed the statute to govern existing credit accounts and credit account solicitation materials. See, e.g., 12 C.F.R. § 226.6. Plaintiff has not alleged that she had any type of account with any of the Defendants at any time or that Defendants solicited her for a credit account. TILA has no provisions that govern credit denial or racially discriminatory lending, both of which form the crux of Plaintiff's claims. Accordingly, the Court grants all Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiff's claims under TILA.
D. Plaintiff's claims under the CRA
The CRA requires a federal regulatory agency to assess whether a lending institution endeavors to meet the credit needs of an entire community, including low-income neighborhoods. See 12 U.S.C. § 2903(a)(1). The statute has no sharply delineated standards. However, it broadly requires federal supervisory agencies to examine a lending institution's efforts to lend to a broad spectrum of the community when processing an application for eligibility as a deposit facility. See Lee v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Reserve Sys., 118 F.3d 905, 913 (2d Cir.1997). All Defendants moved for dismissal of Plaintiff's claims under the CRA on the ground that the statute creates no private right of action.
As a basis for her claim, Plaintiff contends broadly that Defendants have not complied with the CRA because they have failed to create loan products which target African-American and working-class populations. However, the 486 Second Circuit has held that the CRA does not create a private *486 right of action. See id. (citation omitted). Therefore, the Court grants all Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiff's claims under the CRA.
E. Plaintiff's claims under the Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution
The Seventh Amendment preserves the right to a jury trial in civil cases. See U.S. Const. Amend. VII. As Defendants correctly point out, a claim under the Seventh Amendment does not arise unless a plaintiff has not received a jury trial on a cause of action for certain types of legal relief. See Charter Communications Entm't I, LLC v. McGuinness, No. 3:00CV287, 2003 WL 22272595, *1, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17240, *3 (D.Conn., Sept. 29, 2003). Plaintiff has not alleged any facts which would support a claim under the Seventh Amendment. Accordingly, the Court grants all Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiff's Seventh Amendment claims.
The Ninth Amendment does not create an independent cause of action. See Rini v. Zwirn, 886 F.Supp. 270, 289 (E.D.N.Y.1995) (citation omitted). The Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted the Tenth Amendment, the reserved powers amendment, to speak only to issues of federalism and state's rights. See, e.g., United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 649 n. 18, 120 S.Ct. 1740, 146 L.Ed.2d 658 (2000) (Souter, dissenting). Accordingly, the Court grants all Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiff's Ninth and Tenth Amendment claims.

F. Plaintiff's claims under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution
Both the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment restrain state action. See, e.g., Tancredi v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 316 F.3d 308, 312 (2d Cir.2003) (citations omitted); Romeu v. Cohen, 265 F.3d 118, 128 (2d Cir.2001). Plaintiff contends that, although Defendants may claim that they are acting privately, their acts are actually public and therefore subject to the Fourteenth Amendment. As support for her assertion that Defendants' acts are public, Plaintiff points out that Congress may enact laws that punish private discriminatory conduct.
Plaintiff is correct in her assertion that Congress may regulate the banking industry, including private banks, pursuant to the interstate commerce clause. See U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8. However, a plaintiff's complaint of discriminatory lending practices against private banking institutions, even where a state or federal authority has heavily regulated the industry, does not allege sufficient state action. See Davidson v. Citicorp/Citibank, N.A., No. 90 CIV. 0941, 1990 WL 96991, *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 1990) (citation omitted). Even read as broadly as possible, Plaintiff's allegations do not form the basis for a Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment claim; the banking statutes under which Plaintiff asserted her other claims are the most appropriate remedy for the discrimination of which she complains. Accordingly, the Court grants all Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiff's claims under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.
G. Plaintiff's claim under Regulation B of the ECOA
Regulation B, part of the ECOA, prohibits lenders from denying credit to individuals because of their race, color, 487 religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or age. See 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et *487 seq.; see also 12 C.F.R. §
202.1.[5] The ECOA provides for a private cause of action based on disparate impact or disparate treatment. See Jones v. Ford Motor Credit Co., No. 00 CIV. 8330, 2002 WL 88431, *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2002), rev'd on other grounds, 358 F.3d 205 (2d Cir.2004). Courts analyze disparate treatment claims under the ECOA in the same manner as Title VII employment cases. See Gross v. United States Small Bus. Admin., 669 F.Supp. 50, 52 (N.D.N.Y.1987) (citations omitted). Therefore, to establish her claim, a plaintiff must allege that she was a member of a protected class, that she was qualified for the loan that she requested, and that the lender declined the loan and showed a preference for a non-protected individual. See id. To establish a prima facie case under a disparate impact theory, a plaintiff must identify a specific policy or practice which the defendant has used to discriminate and must also demonstrate with statistical evidence that the practice or policy has an adverse effect on the protected group. See Jones, 2002 WL 88431, at *3 (citations omitted).
Plaintiff alleges both disparate impact and disparate treatment causes of action. She contends that banks have engaged in unfair business practices that have prevented African-Americans from purchasing homes and maintaining businesses for many years. As support for her disparate impact claim, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engage in certain practices that have a disproportionate impact on African-American credit and loan applicants. For example, Defendants routinely reject applications for small loans. Defendants also rely upon information that credit bureaus, appraisers, and brokers supply regarding a credit application. Defendants also rely on income levels and credit histories as indicators of creditworthiness; such factors disproportionately affect African-Americans. Plaintiff has also enumerated several more general allegations. For instance, she alleges that banks and the U.S. banking system have made credit unavailable to African-Americans.
As support for her disparate treatment claim, Plaintiff contends that the loan officers to whom she gave her loan applications were all white and did not adequately consider her application. Furthermore, she contends that Defendants subjected her application to onerous requirements even though her debt ratio "was not a problem." See Amended Complaint at ¶ 20.
Defendants contend that Plaintiff has not alleged any actual events, policies, or actions which she claims constitute discrimination, nor has she alleged any circumstances that give rise to an inference of racial discrimination.[6] As a result, her case fails on the first prong of the disparate impact analysis because it

articulates no policy or practice. With respect to any disparate treatment claims, Plaintiff has provided only a bare and unsupported assertion that she was qualified for the loan; she has not alleged that she was more qualified than white applicants.
488 Although a motion for dismissal under 12(b)(6) tests only the adequacy of a *488 plaintiff's complaint, Defendants are correct in their assertion that Plaintiff alleges no specific policy to support her disparate impact claim. See Hack v. President & Fellows of Yale Coll., 237 F.3d 81, 91 (2d Cir.2000) (citation omitted). She broadly alleges that Defendants' reliance on indicators of creditworthiness, such as credit histories and income levels of applicants, causes banks to deny credit disproportionally to African-American loan candidates. However, ECOA regulations explicitly permit lenders to use race-blind factors such as credit histories and income levels when determining whether to extend credit. See 12 C.F.R. 202.6(b)(5)(6). Moreover, the regulations explicitly permit lenders to utilize third-party credit rating organizations. See 12 C.F.R. § 202.10(b). Likewise, Plaintiff's complaint fails to allege a "`causal connection between a facially neutral policy ... and the resultant proportion of minority' group members in the population at issue." See Hack, 237 F.3d at 90-91 (quotation omitted).[7] In Jones, another ECOA case, the plaintiffs' case survived a motion for dismissal because they alleged that a specific policy 0907 a creditor's subjective computation of loan rates 0907 resulted in disproportionately high interest rates for AfricanAmerican borrowers. See Jones, 2002 WL 88431, at *1. In contrast, Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendants used any subjective indicators when making loan decisions.
Plaintiff's three allegations in support of her disparate treatment claim are that loan officers with whom she met were all white, that Defendants subjected her application to more stringent scrutiny, and that her debt ratio was acceptable and she therefore should have received the requested loans. However, the race of the loan officers is not a fact supporting an inference of discriminatory intent on the part of Defendants. Furthermore, Plaintiff acknowledges that Defendants provided her with legitimate reasons for rejecting her application, such as lack of credit history, lack of collateral, and the absence of a co-signer. She does not allege any facts which would tend to show that she actually had a sufficient credit history, sufficient collateral, and/or a necessary co-signer. Whether her debt ratio was acceptable does not bear on any of Defendants' stated reasons for declining to extend credit to Plaintiff, and she provides no specific allegations as to exactly how Defendants subjected her application to additional scrutiny vis-a-vis non-minority loan applicants.
Accordingly, the Court grants all Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiff's claims under the ECOA.
H. Plaintiff's claim under the FHA
The FHA prohibits discrimination against protected classes in any transactions involving the sale or rental of housing. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604; see also Mitchell v. Shane, 350 F.3d 39, 47 (2d Cir.2003). Plaintiff states generally that American banks have for many years deliberately prevented African-Americans from obtaining home loans at market rates.
489 *489 In response, Defendants Citi, HSBC, M & T and NBT contend that Plaintiff has not alleged that they denied her housing or granted her housing on discriminatory terms or conditions. According to Defendants, although the FHA allows for several types of actions, including one based on failure to provide housing loans in a nondiscriminatory manner, Plaintiff did not allege any facts showing that she engaged in any real estate transaction or applied to Defendants for a home loan.
Defendants American General, Beneficial, Charter One, and BSB have largely relied upon the same arguments that they raised with respect to Plaintiff's claims under the ECOA; that is, that even if they did reject Plaintiff's application for a home loan, she has provided no specific allegations supporting a disparate treatment or disparate impact claim.
Plaintiff did not allege that she applied for a housing-related loan or engaged in a housing-related transaction with Defendant Citi. Likewise, she alleges that she applied for business loans, not housing loans, from Defendants HSBC, M & T, and NBT. Therefore, Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to support a prima facie case with respect to these Defendants.

With regard to the other Defendants, including Beneficial, American-General, BSB Bank, and Charter One, Plaintiff alleged that she applied either for a mortgage loan or for an unspecified loan. Construing Plaintiff's pro se claims to suggest their strongest possible allegations, she has alleged that these Defendants declined to approve her application for a housing loan. However, as Defendants point out, Plaintiff's claims under the FHA suffer from the same deficiencies as her claims under the ECOA. That is, Plaintiff simply has not alleged sufficient facts to support a claim of discrimination. She did not allege how Defendants treated her differently from white applicants, nor has she offered any specific examples of discriminatory policies. Her generalized statement that banks discriminated against African-Americans from the 1900s onward is not sufficient to support a claim under the FHA.
Accordingly, the Court grants all Defendants' motions for dismissal of Plaintiff's FHA claims.
IV. CONCLUSION
After carefully considering the file in this matter and the parties' submissions, as well as the applicable law, and for the reasons stated herein, the Court hereby
ORDERS that all Defendants' motions to dismiss are GRANTED in their entirety; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendant Charter One Bank, FSB's motion for a more definite statement is DENIED as moot; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment in favor of Defendants and close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
[1] More specifically, Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Federal Reserve Board's regulations implementing the Truth-in-Lending Act, termed "Regulation Z."
[2] In Plaintiff's original complaint, she did not allege explicitly that any of the Defendants had denied her credit and/or mortgage loans. After she filed the first complaint, the Court ordered her to file an amended complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including a failure to allege any specific misconduct on the part of any specific defendant. See Dkt. No. 11 at 3. Before filing her amended complaint, Plaintiff apparently applied for credit from most of the Defendants, each of whom denied her applications. In the amended complaint, Plaintiff then asserted these denials of credit as a basis for her cause of action. Defendants have brought this to the Court's attention, presumably as evidence that Plaintiff had no basis for her original complaint. However, since Plaintiff's original complaint provided notice of each of her causes of action and also alleged that Defendants' denials of credit formed the factual basis for her complaint, all Defendants had notice of the substance of Plaintiff's claim. Moreover, none of the Defendants moved to strike the additional factual allegations as prejudicial or immaterial. Therefore, although the Court views with disfavor Plaintiff's attempts to bolster her claim with new factual material, in light of Plaintiff's status as a pro se litigant, the Court has considered all of Plaintiff's allegations.
[3] Defendant Charter One Bank, FSB ("Charter One") originally filed a Motion for a More Definite Statement. It then moved for dismissal, incorporating by reference the arguments and legal assertions of those Defendants who had moved for dismissal. Defendants Beneficial, a.k.a. Household Finance Realty Corp., Inc. ("Beneficial") and HSBC Bank ("HSBC") also moved for dismissal by incorporating by reference the arguments of the other Defendants.
Although Defendants M & T Bank Corp. ("M & T"), NBT Bank ("NBT"), BSB, and American General filed separate briefs, they relied primarily on the same arguments as the other Defendants.
[4] Plaintiff has acknowledged that none of the Defendants extended her credit.

[5] Although Plaintiff's amended complaint alleges generally that Defendants discriminated against her based on her sex and gender, every allegation in her complaint relates to race discrimination, and she did not provide even one allegation supporting a claim of sex discrimination.
[6] Defendant American General also asserts that Plaintiff's claim fails because it can provide a legitimate business reason for denying Plaintiff credit. However, for the purposes of this motion, the Court is obligated to treat Plaintiff's allegations as true. As a result, such an assertion does not provide a basis for dismissal.
[7] As an exhibit to Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law, she provided copies of articles that point out that AfricanAmericans and other minorities have significantly less access to credit and loans than non-minorities. However, the 12(b)(6) motion is directed to the sufficiency of the complaint and not the contents of the brief. See Hack, 237 F.3d at 91 (citation omitted). Moreover, even if the Court did consider Plaintiff's memorandum because of Plaintiff's status as a pro se litigant, the memorandum provides no additional factual support for Plaintiff's allegation that she herself has been subject to discriminatory practices, and she specifically states that she does not intend to bring her action as a class action.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?114968729723657-L_3...

ADR, CLOSED
U.S. District Court Northern District of New York - Main Office (Syracuse) [LIVE - Version 3.0.3] (Binghamton)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:02-cv-01605-FJS-DEP

Powell v. American General, et al Assigned to: Senior Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr Referred to: Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff
Tonya R. Powell

Date Filed: 12/31/2002 Date Terminated: 03/23/2004 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Tonya R. Powell 11 Holland Street Binghamton, NY 13905 607-773-3413 PRO SE

V. Defendant American General Finance, Inc.
Defendant Beneficial
Defendant BSB Bank & Trust Company

represented by Robert A. Barrer Hiscock, Barclay Law Firm - Syracuse Office One Park Place 300 South State Street Syracuse, NY 13202-2078 315-425-2704 Fax: 315-425-8544 Email: rbarrer@hiscockbarclay.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Paul K. Stecker Phillips, Lytle Law Firm - Buffalo Office 3400 HSBC Center Buffalo, NY 14203 716-847-8400 Fax: 716-852-6100 Email: pstecker@phillipslytle.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Paul T. Sheppard Hinman, Howard Law Firm - Binghamton Office P.O. Box 5250

1 of 11

7/9/2007 11:43 AM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report
Defendant Charter One Bank, FSB
Defendant Citifinancial Inc.

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?114968729723657-L_3...
80 Exchange Street 700 Security Mutual Building Binghamton, NY 13902-5250 607-723-5341 Fax: 607-723-6605 Email: sheppard@hhk.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrew J. Romanow Buchanan, Ingersoll Law Firm - Buffalo Office 268 Main Street Suite 201 Buffalo, NY 14202 716-853-2330 Fax: 716-854-4277 Email: Andrew.Romanow@bipc.com TERMINATED: 11/13/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glenn M. Fjermedal Lacy, Katzen Law Firm 130 East Main Street The Granite Building Rochester, NY 14604 585-454-5650 Fax: 585-269-3091 Email: gf@lacykatzen.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David M. Cherubin Crane, Parente Law Firm 90 State Street Suite 1515 Albany, NY 12207 518-432-8000 Fax: 518-432-0086 Email: dcherubin@cpclaw.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas J. McNamara Certilman, Balin Law Firm 90 Merrick Avenue The Financial Center at Mitchel Field East Meadow, NY 11554 516-296-7000

2 of 11

7/9/2007 11:43 AM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?114968729723657-L_3...

Defendant HSBC Bank
Defendant M & T Bank Corporation
Defendant NBT Bank

Fax: Fax 516-296-7111 TERMINATED: 05/01/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Paul K. Holbrook HSBC Bank USA General Counsel Office One HSBC Center 27th Floor Buffalo, NY 14203 716-841-2784 Fax: Fax 716-841-5087 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott D. Miller HSBC Bank USA One HSBC Center 27th Floor Buffalo, NY 14203-2827 716-841-4230 Fax: Fax: 716-841-5087 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher P. Schueller Buchanan, Ingersoll Law Firm - Pittsburgh Office 301 Grant Street One Oxford Centre Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1410 412-562-8432 Fax: 412-562-1041 Email: christopher.schueller@bipc.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Paul T. Sheppard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/31/2002

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT filed; jury demand ; Service deadline 3/1/03 for NBT Bank, for M & T Bank Corp., for HSBC Bank, for Citifinancial Inc., for Charter One Bank, for BSB

3 of 11

7/9/2007 11:43 AM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?114968729723657-L_3...

12/31/2002 12/31/2002
12/31/2002 12/31/2002 01/07/2003 01/07/2003 01/14/2003 01/15/2003 01/21/2003 01/21/2003 01/23/2003
01/23/2003
01/24/2003 01/24/2003 01/28/2003

Bank & Trust Co., for Beneficial, for American General (pta) (Entered: 12/31/2002)
2 In Forma Pauperis Application filed by Tonya R. Powell (pta) (Entered: 12/31/2002)
SUMMONS(ES) issued for American General, Beneficial, BSB Bank & Trust Co., Charter One Bank, Citifinancial Inc., HSBC Bank, M & T Bank Corp., NBT Bank [Pro Se Pltf to serve] (pta) (Entered: 12/31/2002)
Civil Case Assignment Form issued (pta) (Entered: 12/31/2002)
PRO SE HANDBOOK issued and explained to Tonya R. Powell at time complaint was filed (pta) (Entered: 12/31/2002)
CASE reassigned to Judge Norman A. Mordue (pta) (Entered: 01/07/2003)
3 COURT NOTICE of case reassignment from Judge Thomas J. McAvoy to Norman A. Mordue in Syracuse NY for all pretrial purposes. (pta) (Entered: 01/07/2003)
Tele-conference held (kcl) (Entered: 01/15/2003)
4 NOTICE of attorney appearance for American General by Robert A. Barrer. (see) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
5 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to HSBC Bank 12/31/02 Answer due on 3/1/03 (amt) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
6 NOTICE of attorney appearance for Citifinancial Inc. by Thomas J. McNamara (amt) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
7 ORDER OF RECUSAL: Pursuant to 28 USC 455(a) of the FRCP, District Judge Mordue finds that it is necessary to disqualify hiself from this matter; The Clerk is to reassign this action from Judge Mordue to the next available Judge in the Case Assignment System ( signed by Judge Norman A. Mordue 1/23/02) Case Assigned to Chief Judge F. J. Scullin Jr. (kcl) Modified on 02/05/2003 (Entered: 01/23/2003)
8 LETTER/NOTICE dated 1/23/03; Letter addressed to Parties in this action advising that pursuant to the [7-1] Order of Recusal of District Judge Mordue, the Clerk has reassigned this action to Chief Judge Scullin; MJ Sharpe remains the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case; Notice sent by KCL (kcl) (Entered: 01/23/2003)
9 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to BSB Bank & Trust Co. 12/31/02 Answer due on 3/1/03 (amt) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
10 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to NBT Bank 12/31/02 Answer due on 3/1/03 (amt) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
11 Order Directing Compliance as to Tonya R. Powell; Plaintiff shall file with the Court by 2/27/03 an amended Complaint that fully complies with rules 8 and 10 of the FRCP; If pltf. fails to file the amended complaint by 3/29/03 , the clerk shall enter Judgment dismissing the case without further order of the Court; If pltf. fails to allege any specific acts of misconduct as to any individuals in the amended complaint, the action will be dismissed as to those defendants; Upon filing of the Amended Complaint, the clerk shall forward the file to the Court for review; Pltf. is directed not to file any further motions until the Amended Complaint is submitted and approved by the Court; Pltfs. [2-1] IFP application is granted; Pltf. shall refrain from serving and deft. until she has submitted the ammended complaint and it is approved; pltf. must serve a copy of this order upon any party she has served process ( Signed by Chief Judge F. J. Scullin Jr. 1/28/03 ) (kcl) (Entered: 01/29/2003)

4 of 11

7/9/2007 11:43 AM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?114968729723657-L_3...

01/31/2003 02/26/2003 02/28/2003 03/03/2003 03/12/2003
03/24/2003 03/25/2003
03/26/2003 03/27/2003 04/04/2003
04/16/2003 04/16/2003

12 NOTICE of attorney appearance for Charter One Bank by Andrew J. Romanow (amt) (Entered: 01/31/2003)
13 AMENDED COMPLAINT by Tonya R. Powell , , amends [1-1] complaint (pta) (Entered: 02/26/2003)
14 NOTICE of attorney appearance for M & T Bank Corp. by Christopher P. Schueller (fce) (Entered: 03/03/2003)
15 NOTICE of attorney appearance for HSBC Bank by Paul K. Holbrook, Scott D. Miller (fce) (Entered: 03/04/2003)
16 ORDER: the Clerk is directed to issue summones and forward them along with copies of the amended complaint to the USM for service upon the unserved defts, responses to be filed thereafter, parties advised of certificate of service requirement, and advise the court of any change of addresses, plaintiff's failure to do so will result in the dismissal of the action. (Signed by Chief Judge F. J. Scullin Jr.) (jmb) (Entered: 03/21/2003)
General Order 25 Filing Order Issued; Conference set before Magistrate Judge Gary L. Sharpe in Binghamton, Status Conference at 12:00 7/21/03 , Deadline for filing Case Management Plan, 7/11/03 , ADR Track Case. (dct) (Entered: 03/24/2003)
17 Scheduling Notice: pursuant to the 3/12/03 Court Order, plaintiff is advised that upon review of the file, no summones remain as they were previously issued upon the filing of this action on 12/31/02. the Court notes that several defendants in this action have executed Wavier of Service forms and have filed Attorney Appearances, blank summones forms are sent to plaintiff to be completed and returned for service upon the remaining defts', the completed summones will be issued and sent to the US Marshal's Office for process of service along with copies of the amended complaint and the recently issued General Order #25. (Signed by Deputy Clerk: Joanne Bleskoski) (jmb) (Entered: 03/27/2003)
SUMMONS(ES) issued for American General, Beneficial, BSB Bank & Trust Co., Charter One Bank, Citifinancial Inc., HSBC Bank, M & T Bank Corp., NBT Bank and mailed to US Marshall along with copy of Complaint and USM forms as in accordance with this Court Order (pta) (Entered: 03/31/2003)
SUMMONS(ES) re-issued for American General, Beneficial, BSB Bank & Trust Co., Charter One Bank, Citifinancial Inc., Bank, M & T Bank Corp., NBT Bank, and sent to the USM for service of process, along with the USM 285 forms and copies of the amended complaint and General Order #25 packet. (jmb) (Entered: 03/27/2003)
18 NOTICE/LETTER BRIEF: dated 4/2/03 by the US Marshals Service, advising the plaintiff, Regarding service upon Beneficial, that they cannot serve an entire entity, as they cannot serve a structure, they require the name of an individual, upon receipt of the completed documents, the USMS will re-attempt service. (jmb) (Entered: 04/07/2003)
19 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to M & T Bank Corp. through Chris Schueiler, Esq., mailed on 4/2/03, received on 4/4/03, Answer due on 6/1/03 for M & T Bank Corp. (jmb) (Entered: 04/22/2003)
20 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to Citifinancial Inc. through Thomas J. McNamara, Esq., mailed on 4/2/03, received on 4/7/03, Answer due on 6/1/03 for Citifinancial Inc. (jmb) (Entered: 04/22/2003)

5 of 11

7/9/2007 11:43 AM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?114968729723657-L_3...

04/17/2003
04/23/2003 04/23/2003 04/25/2003
04/29/2003 04/30/2003 05/01/2003 05/01/2003 05/01/2003 05/06/2003 05/07/2003 05/07/2003 05/07/2003 05/09/2003 05/09/2003

21 LETTER REQUEST & ORDER: dated 4/16/03 by Timothy P. McElduff, Jr., Esq., requesting an extension of time to file M & T Bank's answer, request granted, reset Answer deadline to 5/13/03 for M & T Bank Corp. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gary L. Sharpe) (jmb) (Entered: 04/24/2003)
22 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to American General through Robert A. Barrer, Esq., mailed on 4/2/03, accepted on 4/16/03, Answer due on 6/1/03 for American General (jmb) (Entered: 04/28/2003)
23 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to Charter One Bank through Andrew Romanow, Esq., mailed on 4/2/03, accepted on 4/14/03, Answer due on 6/1/03 for Charter One Bank (jmb) (Entered: 04/28/2003)
24 MOTION by Charter One Bank by Charter One Bank for More Definite Statement , Hearing re-scheduled by the Clerk for 10:00 a.m. on 6/13/03 in Syracuse NY, Response Deadline 5/30/03 , Reply to Response Deadline 6/6/03 Motion returnable before Judge: Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. [incorrectly noticed for 5-09-03]; Affidavit of Andrew J. Romanow; Exhibit A (pta) (Entered: 04/29/2003)
25 CLERK'S NOTICE of placing Deft Charter One Bank's Motion for More Definate Statement [24-1] on the Hon. Frederick J. Scullin's Motion term of June 13, 2003 at 10:00 a.m. in Syracuse NY (pta) (Entered: 04/29/2003)
26 NOTICE of Change of Attorneys by Citifinancial Inc. (amt) (Entered: 05/01/2003)
31 RESPONSE TO MOTION: by Tonya R. Powell in opposition to [24-1] Motion by Charter One Bank for More Definite Statement, and requesting that the motion be denied, w/attached certificate of service. (jmb) (Entered: 05/08/2003)
32 RESPONSE AFFIDAVIT: by Tonya R. Powell in opposition to [24-1] Motion by Charter One Bank for More Definite Statement (jmb) (Entered: 05/08/2003)
33 STIPULATION & ORDER: resetting Answer deadline to 5/16/03 for BSB Bank & Trust Co., and NBT Bank (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gary L. Sharpe) (jmb) (Entered: 05/08/2003)
27 EXEMPT LETTER of Jennifer C. Driver, Esq. dd 5-05-03 on behalf of Citifinancial Inc. pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(b) regarding their Motion: to Dismiss. Date Served upon counsel: 5/5/03 (pta) (Entered: 05/06/2003)
28 MOTION by Deft Citifinancial to Dismiss , Hearing set for 10:00am on 6/13/03 in Syracuse, Response Deadline 5/30/03 , Reply to Response Deadline 6/6/03 Motion returnable before Judge Frederick J. Scullin (amt) (Entered: 05/07/2003)
29 MEMORANDUM by Citifinancial Inc. in support of [28-1] motion by Deft Citifinancial to Dismiss (amt) (Entered: 05/07/2003)
30 AFFIDAVIT by David Cherubin on behalf of Deft Citifinancial Inc. in support of [28-1] motion by Deft Citifinancial to Dismiss (amt) (Entered: 05/07/2003)
34 MOTION by American General to Dismiss plaintiff's Amended Complaint , Hearing set for 10:00 6/13/03 , Response Deadline 5/30/03 Motion returnable before Judge/Mag. Judge: Scullin (jt) (Entered: 05/15/2003)
35 AFFIDAVIT of R. Barrer; by American General Re: [34-1] motion to Dismiss plaintiff's Amended Complaint (jt) (Entered: 05/15/2003)

6 of 11

7/9/2007 11:43 AM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?114968729723657-L_3...

05/09/2003 05/09/2003 05/13/2003
05/13/2003 05/15/2003 05/16/2003 05/16/2003 05/19/2003 05/19/2003 05/19/2003 05/19/2003
05/27/2003 06/20/2003 06/23/2003
06/27/2003

36 MEMORANDUM by American General in support of [34-1] motion to Dismiss plaintiff's Amended Complaint (jt) (Entered: 05/15/2003)
37 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by American General [papers served: Notice of Motion, Affidavit, Memo of Law] (jt) (Entered: 05/15/2003)
38 MOTION with attached Certificate of Service and Affirmation in Support (with exhibits A-C) by M & T Bank Corp. to Dismiss , Hearing set for 10:00 6/13/03 , Response Deadline 5/30/03 Motion returnable before Judge/Mag. Judge: Scullin (jt) (Entered: 05/15/2003)
39 MEMORANDUM by M & T Bank Corp. in support of [38-1] motion to Dismiss (jt) (Entered: 05/15/2003)
46 USM-285 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to HSBC Bank by service via regular mail; service acknowledged by G. Cownie and P. Holbrook, counsel for HSBC on 4/28/03 : Answer due on 5/18/03 for HSBC Bank (jt) (Entered: 05/22/2003)
40 MOTION by Defts BSB and NBT to Dismiss , Hearing set for 10:00am on 6/13/03 in Syracuse, Response Deadline 5/30/03 , Reply to Response Deadline 6/6/03 Motion returnable before Judge Scullin (amt) (Entered: 05/16/2003)
41 MEMORANDUM by BSB Bank & Trust Co., NBT Bank in support of [40-1] motion by Defts BSB and NBT to Dismiss (amt) (Entered: 05/16/2003)
42 MOTION by HSBC Bank by HSBC Bank to Dismiss pur. Rule 12(b)(6) , Hearing set for 10:00 a.m. on 6/13/03 , Response Deadline 5/30/03 Motion returnable before Judge: Scullin [accepted by Chambers] (pta) (Entered: 05/19/2003)
43 MEMORANDUM by HSBC Bank in support of [42-1] motion by HSBC Bank to Dismiss pur. Rule 12(b)(6) (pta) (Entered: 05/19/2003)
44 AFFIDAVIT of Paul K. Holbrook, Esq. by HSBC Bank USA in support of Re: [42-1] motion by HSBC Bank to Dismiss pur. Rule 12(b)(6) (pta) (Entered: 05/19/2003)
45 Scheduling Notice: to Pro Se Plaintiff and Counsel, advising that all the pending motions have been taken on submit, no oral argument will be held, Re: [24-1] motion by Charter One Bank for More Definite Statement, [28-1] motion by Deft Citifinancial to Dismiss, [34-1] motion to Dismiss plaintiff's Amended Complaint, [38-1] motion to Dismiss, [40-1] motion by Defts BSB and NBT to Dismiss, [42-1] motion by HSBC Bank to Dismiss pur. Rule 12(b)(6) (Signed by Senior Law Associate: Deborah E. Moore) {VAB} (jmb) (Entered: 05/20/2003)
47 REPLY by Charter One Bank to response to [24-1] motion by Charter One Bank for More Definite Statement and stating they join in the other Defts' motions (amt) (Entered: 05/27/2003)
48 NOTICE/LETTER MOTION by Beneficial for a Scheduling Notice Re: Motions to Dismiss (jt) (Entered: 06/24/2003)
49 ORDER [48-1] notice under advisement, set Motion Filing deadline to 7/11/03 ; Resp to motion ddl: 7/25/03; Reply to Resp ddl: 8/1/03. Counsel for deft Beneficial ntc of apr ddl: 6/27/03 -MOTION TAKEN ON SUBMIT; ALL PENDING MOTIONS WILL BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER UPON RECEIPT OF ALL THE PARTIES' SUBMISSIONS- ( signed by Chief Judge F. J. Scullin Jr. ) (jt) (Entered: 06/24/2003)
51 Scheduling Notice adjourning the 7/21/03 Rule 16 conference with Mag. Judge Sharpe without date pending a decision by FJS on the pending motions. Parties are

7 of 11

7/9/2007 11:43 AM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?114968729723657-L_3...

06/30/2003 07/09/2003 07/09/2003 07/11/2003
07/11/2003 07/11/2003
07/21/2003 09/02/2003
09/02/2003 09/15/2003 10/01/2003
11/04/2003 11/13/2003 12/12/2003

directed to contact GLS's chambers for conference, if necessary after the decision is rendered. (jlm) (Entered: 06/30/2003)
50 NOTICE of attorney appearance for Household Finance Realty Corporation of New York sued as Beneficial by Paul K. Stecker (pta) (Entered: 06/30/2003)
52 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to Beneficial [mailed by USM on 4/18/03; accepted/signed by atty P. Stecker on 6/19/03] Answer due on 6/17/03 for Beneficial (jt) (Entered: 07/10/2003)
53 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to Beneficial on 6/19/03 [served via regular mail 4/18/03; USM 299 received 6/23/03]: Answer due on 7/9/03 for Beneficial (jt) (Entered: 07/10/2003)
54 MOTION by Household Finance Realty Corporation of New York, sued as " Beneficial " by Beneficial to Dismiss Amended Complaint , Hearing set for <date not set> , Response Deadline <date not set> Motion returnable before Judge: Scullin (pta) (Entered: 07/11/2003)
55 MEMORANDUM by Beneficial in support of [54-1] motion by Beneficial to Dismiss Amended Complaint (pta) (Entered: 07/11/2003)
56 NOTICE/LETTER REQUEST: dated 6/30/03 by Robert A. Barrer, Esq., on behalf of American General, to Magistrate Judge Sharpe, requesting that the Rule 16 conference set for July 21, 2003 be adjourned without date until a decision is rendered on the pending motions to dismiss in this action. (jmb) (Entered: 07/15/2003)
57 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tonya R. Powell - confirmation of mailing of the complaint and memo of law to the atty's Phillip, Lytle Law Firm representing deft Beneficial (jt) (Entered: 07/21/2003)
58 USM-285/Summons returned unexecuted as to NBT Bank, BSB Bank & Trust Co. : service via regular mail 4/2/03; USM 299 received U-E (attached is copy of USMS notice to Pro-Se Pltf regarding the failure to serve Summons and Complaint) (jt) (Entered: 09/02/2003)
59 Bill of costs by the USMS in the amount of $64.00 (jt) (Entered: 09/02/2003)
Pltf Powell telephoned re: [58-1] USM-285/summons returned unexecuted as to NBT Bank and BSB Bank; pltf states that she served Tom Shepard on behalf of both deft banks herself and will provide Affidavit of Service (jt) (Entered: 09/15/2003)
60 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tonya R. Powell -- states Second Sending that pltf did personally serve to Paul Sheppard cnsl employed by Hinman, Howard, Kattell Notice of Motion, Memo of Law, Cases and Articles ('in hand') on 6/2/03 (jt) (Entered: 10/01/2003)
61 REQUEST and ORDER: Denies pltf's request to add exhibits (signed by Chief Judge F. J. Scullin Jr. on 11/3/03) (jt) (Entered: 11/10/2003)
62 NOTICE of attorney appearance for Charter One Bank by Glenn M. Fjermedal (amt) (Entered: 11/13/2003)
64 DOCUMENT REJECTION ORDER as to Tonya R. Powell returning letter to the court dated 12/08/03; PAPERS CANNOT BE FILED W/O SOME INDICATION THAT THEY HAVE BEEN SERVED ON OPPONENTS OR THEIR ATTYS and RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE COURT MUST BE IN THE FORM OF A MOTION THAT COMPLIES WITH L.R. 7.1. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on

8 of 11

7/9/2007 11:43 AM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?114968729723657-L_3...

12/17/2003 03/22/2004
03/23/2004 03/26/2004 03/29/2004
04/01/2004 04/06/2004
04/13/2004 04/26/2004 04/26/2004 04/26/2004 04/28/2004

12/12/03. (jt, ) (Entered: 12/23/2003)
63 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge David E. Peebles for all further proceedings. Judge Gary L. Sharpe no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. on 12/17/03. (jt, ) (Entered: 12/19/2003)
65 MEMORANDUM, DECISION AND ORDER denying as moot the 24 Motion for More Definite Statement, granting 28 Motion to Dismiss, granting 42 Motion to Dismiss, granting 34 Motion to Dismiss, granting 38 Motion to Dismiss, granting 40 Motion to Dismiss, granting 54 Motion to Dismiss; Clerk is directed to enter one judgment in favor of defendants and close the case . Signed by Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. on 3/22/04. (kcl, ) (Entered: 03/23/2004)
66 JUDGMENT in favor of Defendants against Plaintiff (kcl, ) (Entered: 03/23/2004)
67 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. re 65 Order on Motion for More Definite Statement,, Order on Motion to Dismiss, 66 Judgment Sent to Tonya Powell Address sent to 60 Court Street, Binghamton, NY 13901 (mnm) (Entered: 03/29/2004)
The Court on today's date (3/29/04) has re-served documents # 65 Memorandum-Decision & Order and # 66 Judgment upon Tanya Powell at the address of P.O. Box 965, Johnson City, New York 13790. Additionally plaintiff is directed to formally update her address information with the Court. (jmb) (Entered: 03/29/2004)
68 BILL OF COSTS by BSB Bank & Trust Company, NBT Bank. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Sheppard, Paul) (Entered: 04/01/2004)
69 MOTION for Attorney Fees Motion Hearing set for 5/14/2004 10:00 AM in Syracuse before Chief Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr.. Response to Motion due by 4/27/2004 Reply to Response to Motion due by 5/3/2004. by BSB Bank & Trust Company, NBT Bank. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Paul T. Sheppard# 2 Exhibit A and B# 3 Exhibit C and D# 4 Exhibit E through H# 5 Memorandum of Law in Support of Application for Attorneys' Fees# 6 Certificate of Service)(Sheppard, Paul) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
70 RESPONSE in Opposition re 69 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Tonya R. Powell. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit # 2Memo Support # 3 Affidavit of Service(mnm) (Entered: 04/19/2004)
71 BILL OF COSTS by BSB Bank & Trust Company, NBT Bank against Tonya R. Powell entered and taxed in the amount of $98.00 to be included in the judgment on 4/26/2004 by Deputy Clerk Barbara J. Woodford. (bjw, ) (Entered: 04/26/2004)
Motions Taken Under Advisement: 69 MOTION for Attorney Fees (jmb) (Entered: 04/27/2004)
72 SCHEDULING NOTICE: advising Ms. Powell and counsel of record that the 69 MOTION for Attorney Fees will be taken on submit, no oral argument will be held. (Issued by Senior Law Associate: Deborah E. Moore) (jmb) (Entered: 04/27/2004)
73 ORDER Clarifying Motions: re 69 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by BSB Bank & Trust Company, NBT Bank, 70 Motion filed by Tonya R. Powell. The Court construes plaintiff's notice of motion as a response to defendant's motion for attorneys' fees and not a separate motion for reconsideration. Therefore, the motion for attorneys' fees is the only motion pending before the Court.. Signed by Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. on 4/28/2004. (bjw, ) (Entered: 04/28/2004)

9 of 11

7/9/2007 11:43 AM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?114968729723657-L_3...

04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 05/06/2004 05/06/2004
05/06/2004 05/07/2004 05/13/2004 05/26/2004 05/26/2004 06/04/2004 06/08/2004 06/09/2004

74 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 69 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by BSB Bank & Trust Company, NBT Bank. (Sheppard, Paul) (Entered: 04/30/2004)
75 MEMORANDUM OF LAW re 69 Motion for Attorney Fees, Reply Memorandum filed by BSB Bank & Trust Company, NBT Bank. (Sheppard, Paul) (Entered: 04/30/2004)
76 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by BSB Bank & Trust Company, NBT Bank re 74 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 75 Memorandum of Law (Sheppard, Paul) (Entered: 04/30/2004)
77 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS: by Tonya R. Powell, Effective Date 5/6/04, Old Address: P.O. Box 965, Johnson City, NY 13790, New Address: P.O. Box 314, Johnson City, NY 13790 (jmb) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
78 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Tonya R. Powell, and response in opposition to 69 MOTION for Attorney Fees. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Tonya R. Powell Re: Reconsideration # 2 Rebuttal # 3 Memorandum of Law Argument# 4 Appendix Response to request for Attorneys Fees# 5 Affidavit of Tonya R. Powell - Re: Attorney's Fees){Return date selected is 5/14/04, however this will not allow for proper amount of time to respond, therefore a scheduling notice will be sent out to reschedule the motion return date.}(jmb) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
79 SCHEDULING NOTICE: resetting Hearing on Motion, Re: 78 MOTION for Reconsideration : Motion returnable on 6/25/04 on submission, no oral argument to be held. Response to Motion deadline set for 6/8/2004. (Issued by Deputy Clerk: Joanne Bleskoski) (jmb) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
80 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 78 MOTION for Reconsideration re 69 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by American General Finance, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration# 2 Certificate of Service)(Cook, John) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
81 RESPONSE in Opposition re 78 MOTION for Reconsideration re 69 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by BSB Bank & Trust Company, NBT Bank. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law # 2 Certificate of Service)(Sheppard, Paul) (Entered: 05/13/2004)
82 AFFIDAVIT of Paul K. Holbrook, Esq. in Opposition re 78 Plaintiff's MOTION for Reconsideration filed by HSBC Bank. (pta, ) (Entered: 05/26/2004)
CLERK, P. Aton mailed the Notice to parties to file documents electronically through this court's CM/ECF System to the attorney's not receiving NEF (pta, ) (Entered: 05/26/2004)
83 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 78 MOTION for Reconsideration re 69 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Citifinancial Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Certificate of Service)(Cherubin, David) (Entered: 06/04/2004)
84 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 78 MOTION for Reconsideration re 69 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by M & T Bank Corporation. (Staehr, Jonathan) (Entered: 06/08/2004)
85 AFFIDAVIT filed by Andrew J. Romanow, Esq., on behalf of M & T Bank Corporation in Opposition to 78 MOTION for Reconsideration (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Part 1# 2 Exhibit A- Part 2# 3 Exhibit B)(jmb) (Entered: 06/15/2004)

10 of 11

7/9/2007 11:43 AM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?114968729723657-L_3...

09/21/2004

86 ORDER denying 69 Defendant's Motion for Attorney Fees, denying 78 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of 3/22/2004 order . Signed by Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. on 9/21/2004. (bjw, ) (Entered: 09/21/2004)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

07/09/2007 12:44:15

hs0328 Client Code: clearinghouse

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

3:02-cv-01605-FJS-DEP

7

Cost:

0.56

11 of 11

7/9/2007 11:43 AM