Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02238/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02238-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 430
Nature of Suit: Banks and Banking
Cause of Action: 12:3410 Right to Financial Privacy: Customer Challenges

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL HUCUL,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 17cv2238 DMS(MDD)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS

v.

NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,

Defendant.

This case comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s

Complaint. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion, and Defendant filed a reply. For

the reasons set out below, the Court grants the motion.

I.

BACKGROUND

On November 2, 2017, Plaintiff Michael Hucul, proceeding pro se, filed the

present case against Defendant Navy Federal Credit Union. In the Complaint, Plaintiff

alleges that on September 29, 2017, he attempted to withdraw funds out of two of his

joint accounts with Defendant, the first account being held jointly with his wife and the

second account being held jointly with his son. (Compl. at 4.) Plaintiff alleges he was

denied access to the funds in those accounts, and when he called Defendant to inquire,

he was provided with a phone number for the California Department of Child Support

Services (“DCSS”). (Id.) In response to a further inquiry by Plaintiff, Defendant

emailed to him an “Order to Withhold” letter from DCSS. (Id., Compl., Ex. A.) It is

- 1 - 17cv2238

Case 3:17-cv-02238-DMS-MDD Document 23 Filed 01/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

unclear whether any funds have been released to DCSS or if the funds are still frozen

in Defendant’s accounts. Nevertheless, Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s conduct violates

the Right to Financial Privacy Act (“RFPA”). He specifically challenges Defendant’s

(1) failure to request a “certificate of compliance” from DCSS prior to freezing his

accounts and (2) failure to notify Plaintiff before freezing his accounts. (Id.) In

response to the Complaint, Defendant filed the present motion.1

 

II.

DISCUSSION

Defendant raises three arguments in support of its motion. First, Defendant

argues it is immune from liability pursuant to California Family Code § 17453(f).

Second, Defendant asserts the RFPA does not apply to the facts of this case. Third,

Defendant contends that even if the RFPA applies, it did not violate the law. 

A. Legal Standard

To survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),

“a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim

to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)

(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

“Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will ... be a

context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience

and common sense.” Id. at 679 (citing Iqbal v. Hasty, 490 F.3d 143, 157-58 (2d Cir.

2007)). In Iqbal, the Court began this task “by identifying the allegations in the

complaint that are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Id. at 680. It then considered

1

 After filing the Complaint, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order to prevent Defendant from transferring his funds to the DCSS. The

Court denied that motion, and Plaintiff filed an appeal of that decision, which is currently pending. 

- 2 - 17cv2238

Case 3:17-cv-02238-DMS-MDD Document 23 Filed 01/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

“the factual allegations in respondent’s complaint to determine if they plausibly suggest

an entitlement to relief.” Id. at 681.

B. The RFPA Does Not Apply

Defendant’s second argument in support of its motion to dismiss is that the RFPA

does not apply to the facts of this case. Because this argument is dispositive, the Court

addresses it first. 

The RFPA states, “No financial institution, or officer, employees, or agent of a

financial institution, may provide to any Government authority access to or copies of,

or the information contained in, the financial records of any customer except in

accordance with the provisions of this title.” 12 U.S.C. § 3403(a). The RFPA defines

“Government authority” as “any agency or department of the United States, or any

officer, employee, or agent thereof[.]” 12 U.S.C. § 3401(3). By its plain terms, the

RFPA does not apply to the facts of this case because there has been no conduct on

behalf of the United States Government. Rather, the only governmental action at issue

in this case is that of the DCSS, which is a department of the State of California, not the

United States. See Gyamfi v. Wells Fargo-Wachovia Bank, No. DKC 09-3001, 2010

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131870 (D. Md. Dec. 14, 2010) (granting motion to dismiss RFPA

claim based on defendant’s freezing of account in response to request from Child

Support Services Division of Office of the Attorney General of the District of

Columbia). See also Goldman v. Consumers Credit Union, No. 1:16-cv-1372, 2017

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60233, at *11 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 20, 2017) (dismissing RFPA claim

against credit union based on disclosure of information to county sheriff’s department). 

Because the RFPA does not apply to the conduct at issue here, the Court grants

Defendant’s motion to dismiss.2

 

/ / /

/ / /

2

 In light of this holding, the Court declines to address Defendant’s other

arguments for dismissal. The Court also denies as moot Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for joinder. 

- 3 - 17cv2238

Case 3:17-cv-02238-DMS-MDD Document 23 Filed 01/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For these reasons, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to dismiss, and dismisses

Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 22, 2018

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

- 4 - 17cv2238

Case 3:17-cv-02238-DMS-MDD Document 23 Filed 01/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4