Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Hickox v. Citizens Bank, 4:17-CV-2010. (2018)

Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania Number: infdco20180205f16 Visitors: 8
Filed: Feb. 02, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 02, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MARTIN C. CARLSON , Magistrate Judge . The background of this order is as follows: The plaintiff, a state prisoner, commenced this action by a complaint on November 2, 2017, which alleged that the defendants have violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, by falsely and erroneously reporting delinquencies on various checking accounts which Hickox asserts were opened fraudulently by unknown parties in his name while he has been incarcerated.(Doc. 1.) This case comes befor
More

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

The background of this order is as follows:

The plaintiff, a state prisoner, commenced this action by a complaint on November 2, 2017, which alleged that the defendants have violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, by falsely and erroneously reporting delinquencies on various checking accounts which Hickox asserts were opened fraudulently by unknown parties in his name while he has been incarcerated.(Doc. 1.) This case comes before the court on a motion to strike the plaintiff's demand for a jury trial. (Doc. 10.) In this motion, Bank of America argues that the plaintiff is bound by the bank's account agreement, which provides for a jury trial waiver. (Doc. 11.)

Hickox has responded to this motion is a straightforward fashion, asserting that since the gist of his claim is that he did not open this account, and some unknown person has opened the account fraudulently in his name, he cannot be bound by the terms of the account agreement since he never actually agreed to those terms.

We concur. In this case, the gravamen of Hickox's complaint is that he did not agree to open this bank account. Therefore, the issue of whether he is bound by the terms of the account agreement is inextricably bound up with the merits of Hickox's claims. Under these circumstances, the motion to strike the jury trial demand is premature and must await further development of the factual issues which lie at the heart of this lawsuit.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the defendant's motion to strike jury trial demand (Doc. 10), is DENIED without prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer