SDNY Grants Summary Judgment to ZEK Client for the Second Time
ZEK won another significant victory over a pro se plaintiff who has been relentless but continuously unsuccessful in litigating against a ZEK bank client on two continents since 1985, when plaintiff first sued in the Philippines to allege improper efforts to collect a defaulted loan. Initially, Philippine counsel to the bank succeeded in reducing a multi-million dollar judgment against the defendant bank to a mid-six-figure amount. Not satisfied with that result, plaintiff sued the bank in federal court in the Southern District of New York in 2012 seeking over $19 million on the basis of a judgment that the bank advised was bogus.
Stuart Krause and Ron Neumann successfully challenged the initial complaint, convincing the federal court in 2013 both that the purported judgment was not authentic, and that the prior rulings of the Philippine courts that the bank had satisfied the reduced judgment were controlling (i.e., res judicata). Plaintiff moved for reconsideration, which was denied, as were her appeals to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and her writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Undeterred by defeat, plaintiff brought a new action, also in federal court in the Southern District of New York in 2016. The case was assigned to a different judge and the process repeated, with plaintiff amending the complaint and bringing successive motions for summary judgment. Again, ZEK successfully moved to dismiss the complaint, and on September 1, 2017, Judge Alison Nathan granted judgment for the bank dismissing the complaint, both because it had been previously litigated to conclusion and because the bank had satisfied the judgment in the Philippines. In addition, the Court in response to a request by ZEK for an injunction against further filing by plaintiff, put plaintiff “on notice that any further vexatious filings or litigation against Defendants may result in a filing injunction [prohibiting the filing of future complaints]. This includes any frivolously brought motion for reconsideration of this Order.”
Sabeniano v. Citibank, N.A., 16-cv-1723 (AJN) 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143328 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2017).