Citigroup behavior in court provides ammunition for borrowers facing foreclosure and other creditor lawsuits and for others facing a possible lawsuit dismissal due to an arbitration agreement.
Banks are among the leading users of summary judgment motions which prevent homeowners and other borrowers from their day in court, often before discovery has even begun
Well, when Citigroup faced a summary judgment motion itself in a retaliation lawsuit, its lawyers submitted a brief asking the federal judge to strike the summary judgment motion, and remarkably, instead of granting the motion after Citigroup failed to reply according to federal district court rules, the federal district magistrate judge struck the summary judgment motion. It was as if the motion was never submitted.
The motion for summary judgment was submitted almost seven months after the case began, yet the motion was stricken because Citigroup claimed it was premature because it did not have a chance to perform discovery.
Here is Plaintiff’s memorandum-for-summary-judgment
Here is Citigroup’s reply to strike the summary judgment
And here is the judges order striking the summary judgment
For those facing a summary judgement motion by Citigroup attorney’s, their argument here should provide leverage to get it dismissed, as Citigroup has done here by claiming the motion was submitted too early (7 months after lawsuit began). Despite court rules allowing summary judgment motion to be filed within 28 days after lawsuit begins, judge sided with Citigroup and had the summary judgment motion stricken.
Citigroup’s reply to compel arbitration
Judges order granting motion