Krasnici v. UBS AG

Background

Kabas Krasnici, proceeding without a lawyer and having paid the filing fee, sued several banks, including UBS AG, UBS Financial Services (U.S.), Deutsche Bank, Bank of America, Wells Fargo Bank, JPMorgan Chase Bank, Citibank, BNY Mellon, Standard Chartered Bank, and HSBC. He alleged that the defendants “failed to honor fiduciary obligations, diverted or concealed escrowed and secured assets, and refused accounting.” He sought $640 billion in U.S. dollars and 600 million euros in damages.

Krasnici later added claims for bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344, securities fraud under 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and violations of the Dodd-Frank Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962.

Screening and jurisdiction problems

The court had screened the case and identified insufficient facts establishing subject-matter jurisdiction and venue. It instructed Krasnici to allege what the defendants did and where they did it. After a second order to show cause identified the same venue problems and stated that the court likely lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants, Krasnici filed another supplement. The court found that the supplement reattached documents already submitted and supplied no new information about what the defendants did or where they did it.

The opinion also identified additional potential defects: the complaint failed to state a claim, did not plead fraud with the required particularity, and might assert claims that were time barred. The court said these issues would normally support another opportunity to amend, but concluded that further amendment would be futile because of the venue and personal-jurisdiction problems.

Reassignment and recommendation

Because not all parties had appeared and consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction, the court ordered the Clerk of Court to reassign the case to a district judge. Judge Laurel Beeler recommended that the newly assigned district judge dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction and venue, without prejudice to filing it in another forum. The opinion did not itself state that the district judge had entered the recommended dismissal.

Any party could file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the recommendation. The opinion stated that failing to object within that period could waive the right to appeal the district court’s order.