Hubbuch v. Capital One, N.A.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:25-cv-00406
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Hubbuch v. Capital One, Judge Broderick granted Capital One’s dismissal motion, denied sanctions and a temporary restraining order, and allowed amendment.
Edward B. Hubbuch must amend within 30 days if he wishes to continue pursuing his claims, and any amendment must cure the deficiencies identified by the magistrate judge. Capital One’s dismissal motion was granted, its counsel faced no Rule 11 sanctions, and Capital One may continue complying with the state-court garnishment notice. The order also denied Hubbuch’s requested temporary restraint against enforcement of the state-court judgment.
What happened
Edward B. Hubbuch, representing himself, sued Capital One, N.A., and John Doe Staff Attorney No. 1 under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. He also asked the court to stop enforcement of a state-court judgment and prevent funds from being frozen or garnished.
The court adopted Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger’s recommendation after finding no clear error and noting that neither party objected. It granted Capital One’s motion to dismiss, denied Hubbuch’s request for sanctions, and allowed him 30 days to amend his complaint. The court said his proposed amended complaint filed before permission was granted was procedurally improper and had no legal effect.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick also denied Hubbuch’s temporary restraining order because Hubbuch had not shown that he was likely to succeed. The court concluded that Capital One was required to follow the state-law garnishment notice and temporarily hold funds in the business accounts as required to enforce the state-court judgment.
The detailed version
- Hubbuch v. Capital One, N.A. · No. 1:25-cv-00406
- Vernon Broderick
- July 15, 2025
Background
Edward B. Hubbuch, proceeding without a lawyer, asserted two claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act against Capital One, N.A., and John Doe Staff Attorney No. 1. He also sought a temporary restraining order to prevent enforcement of a state-court judgment and to stop funds from being frozen, garnished, or withdrawn from his business account.
Capital One moved to dismiss the complaint. Hubbuch moved for sanctions under Rule 11 against Capital One’s counsel and later sought a temporary restraining order. Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger recommended granting Capital One’s motion to dismiss with permission to amend and denying the sanctions motion. Neither party objected to the report and recommendation.
Hubbuch filed a document labeled “First Amended Complaint” before the court granted permission to amend. The magistrate judge determined that the filing was procedurally improper and had no legal effect because Hubbuch had not yet been granted leave to amend.
Temporary Restraining Order
The court denied Hubbuch’s request for emergency relief. To obtain a temporary restraining order, a plaintiff must show, among other things, a likelihood of success on the merits. The court concluded that Hubbuch could not make that showing for the same reasons supporting dismissal of his claims.
The court explained that Capital One had received a New York garnishment notice requiring it to transfer covered personal property to the sheriff and prohibiting transfer of that property until the judgment was satisfied or 90 days had expired. Because the business account did not contain enough money to satisfy the judgment, the court concluded that Capital One was required to place temporary holds on the accounts so future deposits could be applied to the levy. The court therefore found no valid legal basis to stop Capital One from enforcing the state-court judgment by freezing or garnishing the business account.
Rulings
The court adopted Magistrate Judge Lehrburger’s report and recommendation in full. It granted Capital One’s motion to dismiss, denied Hubbuch’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions, and granted Hubbuch leave to amend within 30 days. Any amendment must address the deficiencies identified in the report and state a plausible claim for relief; the court stated that it was unlikely to allow another amendment. The court also denied Hubbuch’s motion for a temporary restraining order and directed the Clerk of Court to close the docket entries associated with the decided motions.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.