Wyse v. Metropolitan Commercial Bank
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:24-cv-09108
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Wyse v. Metropolitan Commercial Bank, Judge Engelmayer denied one dismissal ground, granted another, and dismissed the case without prejudice.
The ruling affected Michael Wyse in his role as Plan Administrator, the people who assigned their claims to him, and Metropolitan Commercial Bank.
What happened
In Wyse v. Metropolitan Commercial Bank, Michael Wyse, acting as Plan Administrator for the Voyager Wind-Down Debtor, sued Metropolitan Commercial Bank. The judgment says the Plan Administrator brought claims on behalf of people who had assigned their claims to him and presented the matter as 31,867 individual actions rather than as a class action.
The court denied the bank’s request to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction but granted its request to dismiss because the complaint did not adequately state a legal claim. The court also said the Plan Administrator used improper shortcuts, including aggregating different claims and treating the fraud pleading rules as less demanding for him.
Judge Paul Engelmayer dismissed the case without prejudice and gave the Plan Administrator a final opportunity to replead if the facts support non-frivolous claims. The court directed that any new actions distinguish the facts for each plaintiff, avoid aggregating dissimilar claims, use a proper forum, and meet the same pleading standards that apply to other litigants; the case was closed.
The detailed version
- Wyse v. Metropolitan Commercial Bank · No. 1:24-cv-09108
- Paul Engelmayer
- Aug. 4, 2025
Background
Michael Wyse, identified as the Plan Administrator for the Voyager Wind-Down Debtor, sued Metropolitan Commercial Bank. The judgment states that people called “Assignors” had irrevocably assigned their claims against the bank to the Plan Administrator. It also states that the Plan Administrator presented the matter as an aggregation of 31,867 individual actions rather than as a class action. The judgment refers to pleading deficiencies discussed in the court’s August 4, 2025 Opinion and Order, but that underlying opinion is not included in the supplied text.
Rulings on the Motion to Dismiss
The court denied Metropolitan Commercial Bank’s motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court granted the bank’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint adequately states a legal claim.
The judgment says the Plan Administrator had used impermissible shortcuts in at least two respects. First, he aggregated dissimilar claims instead of treating the matter as a class action. Second, he wrongly assumed that the pleading requirements for fraud were relaxed for him. The judgment states that these approaches caused some, though not necessarily all, of the complaint’s fatal defects.
Disposition
The court stated that it could have dismissed the case with prejudice because the Plan Administrator had been given an opportunity to amend but did not do so. Instead, out of concern for the Assignors, the court dismissed the case without prejudice and gave the Plan Administrator a final opportunity to replead if the facts provide a non-frivolous basis for claims against the bank.
The court stated that any new action or actions should not aggregate dissimilar claims; should separately plead facts for each plaintiff when the claims require individualized proof; should be filed in a proper forum; and should apply the same pleading standards that apply to other litigants. The court also stated that its ruling about the applicable pleading standards is law of the case. The judgment concludes that the case is closed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.