Ceru v. Ally Bank
- Philip Halpern
- 7:24-cv-06733
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Ceru v. Ally Bank, Judge Halpern transferred the case to Utah because the parties’ agreement required account-related lawsuits to be brought there.
Robert Ceru’s lawsuit against Ally Bank was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the United States District Court for the District of Utah; the opinion did not resolve the merits of Ceru’s claims.
What happened
In Ceru v. Ally Bank, Robert Ceru sued Ally Bank over two unauthorized transactions totaling $19,023.45, asserting claims including violations of the Electronic Fund Transfers Act, conversion, and negligence.
Ally Bank asked to move the case to the United States District Court for the District of Utah. Ceru did not dispute agreeing to the account agreement’s requirement that lawsuits about the account be brought in Utah, but argued that transfer would be inconvenient because discovery had begun and he might need Utah counsel and cross-country travel.
Judge Philip M. Halpern ruled that the forum-selection clause was enforceable and granted Ally Bank’s motion to transfer under federal law. He directed the Clerk to transfer the case to the District of Utah and close the case in the Southern District of New York.
The detailed version
- Ceru v. Ally Bank · No. 7:24-cv-06733
- Philip Halpern
- June 6, 2025
Background
Robert Ceru brought this action against Ally Bank concerning two unauthorized transactions that deducted credit-card payments from his Ally Bank account. The transactions totaled $19,023.45. The complaint asserted claims including violations of the Electronic Fund Transfers Act, conversion, and negligence.
Ally Bank first moved to transfer the case, but the Court denied that motion without prejudice because it did not comply with the Court’s Individual Practices. Ally Bank later renewed the request, and the renewed motion was fully submitted.
Transfer Request
Ally Bank argued that the parties’ Deposit Agreement contained a forum-selection clause requiring the case to be brought in Utah. The clause stated that “[a]ny lawsuit regarding [the] [A]ccount must be brought in a proper court in the State of Utah.” Ceru did not dispute that he agreed to the clause. He argued only that transfer would be inconvenient because discovery was underway in the Southern District of New York and he might need to retain Utah counsel and travel across the country for hearings. He did not claim that any public-interest factor justified keeping the case in New York.
Court’s Analysis
The Court applied the federal transfer statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and explained that a valid forum-selection clause ordinarily receives controlling weight unless exceptional public-interest circumstances support denying transfer. The Court found that the clause was reasonably communicated because it appeared in the main text of the signed Deposit Agreement and Ceru renewed his assent when Ally Bank modified the agreement.
The Court also found that the clause was mandatory because it used the word “must,” covered the account-related claims in the lawsuit, and applied to the parties. Ceru did not make the sufficiently strong showing needed to overcome the clause’s presumed enforceability. The Court therefore did not decide the underlying merits of his unauthorized-transaction claims.
Disposition
Judge Philip M. Halpern granted Ally Bank’s motion to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the District of Utah under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion, transfer the action to the District of Utah, and close the case in the Southern District of New York.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.