Williams v. TD Bank
David K. Williams, as Guardian and Personal Representative of Gus Williams (deceased) and Rosanna Williams v. TD Bank, N.A., Kevin Taylor, Derek K., and Does 1-50
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:25-cv-06753
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In David K. Williams v. TD Bank, Judge Karas denied the summary-judgment and temporary-restraining-order motions without prejudice as premature.
David K. Williams’s requests for summary judgment and emergency injunctive relief were denied without prejudice because the defendants had not yet been served. The defendants were not required to respond to the unserved motions, and the court left open renewal of the temporary-restraining-order motions after service.
What happened
In David K. Williams v. TD Bank, David K. Williams sought emergency court orders concerning alleged theft, elder abuse, and obstruction involving TD Bank and other defendants. He requested an expedited hearing, a temporary restraining order, asset preservation, and other protections for Rosanna Williams.
The court noted that Williams had not yet served the complaint or the motions on the defendants. Because the defendants had not received notice, the court treated the motions as premature rather than deciding whether Williams's allegations or evidence were legally sufficient.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied the motions for summary judgment and a temporary restraining order without prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motions, and the court stated that Williams may renew the temporary-restraining-order motions after properly serving the defendants.
The detailed version
- Williams v. TD Bank · No. 7:25-cv-06753
- Kenneth Karas
- Sept. 11, 2025
Background
David K. Williams, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an emergency motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. He alleged that TD Bank, Kevin Taylor, Derek K., and unnamed defendants engaged in systematic theft, elder abuse, and obstruction. He asserted that Gus Williams died on January 15, 2025, after allegedly being denied medical care because stolen assets prevented funding for treatment. He also claimed that Rosanna Williams, whom the filing describes as more than 100 years old, faced an imminent risk of harm.
Williams relied on alleged communications and documents involving TD Bank, including an August 29, 2025 letter signed by Derek Killam and an August 21, 2025 invoice. Williams argued that these documents showed contradictory positions about the estate of Gus Williams and constituted admissions of wrongdoing. The opinion does not decide whether those allegations or documents establish liability.
Relief Requested
Williams requested an expedited hearing within 48 hours, a temporary restraining order, asset-preservation orders, and other injunctive relief. The requested orders included stopping alleged obstruction of settlement discussions, requiring production of burial papers, preventing destruction of evidence, freezing settlement funds, and requiring compliance with federal court orders. He also filed a motion for summary judgment.
Court’s Reasoning
The court stated that Williams had not yet served the complaint, the summary-judgment motion, or the temporary-restraining-order motions on the defendants. The court explained that a party proceeding without a lawyer is still required to follow service rules. Because the defendants had not been served and therefore had not received notice of the motions, the court found the requests premature.
The court did not address the merits of Williams’s claims, the alleged admissions, the alleged regulatory violations, or the requested emergency protections.
Disposition
Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied Williams’s motions for summary judgment and for a temporary restraining order without prejudice. The court stated that Williams may renew the temporary-restraining-order motions after properly serving the defendants. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motions, identified in the opinion as docket entries 4, 6, 8, and 11, and mail Williams a copy of the order.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.