Opinion
3:23-cv-5137
12-18-2023
TONY AND BARBARA PATRINICOLA, Plaintiff, v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Marsha J. Pechman, United States Senior District Judge
On August 15, 2023, this Court held a status conference with the parties to discuss the case. (Dkt. No. 53.) During this meeting, the Court held a special master would be appointed to resolve the banking issues in dispute. The Court appointed a special master on August 28, 2023. (Dkt. No. 58.) The Special Master reviewed documents, met with the parties, and wrote a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Exhibit A), which she provided to the Court. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds the reasoning sound and ADOPTS the R&R.
A. Background
This case arises out of a dispute between Plaintiffs, Tony and Barbara Patrinicola, and their bank, Navy Federal Credit Union (“Navy Federal”). The Patrinicolas purchased several certificates of deposit (“CD”) with Navy Federal. (Compl. at 2 (Dkt. No. 1-2).) The Patrinicolas allege that Navy Federal wrongfully closed accounts, refused to renew certain CD's, and failed to payout funds. (Id.) The Patrinicolas, proceeding pro se, brought an action against Navy Federal seeking return of their moneys, along with other requests for relief. (Id. at 4.)
B. Appointment of Special Master
The Court met with the parties in person on August 15, 2023 to discuss the case and clarify what the Patrinicolas sought through this action. (Dkt. No. 53.) Specifically, the Court sought to determine whether the Patrinicolas were simply trying to sort out their accounts or if they wished to file a suit for fraud against Navy Federal. (Exhibit B, Hearing Tr. 7:10-18.) Mr. Patrinicola confirmed the goal of this litigation was to “account for the money [he] invested in [the] bank.” (Id. at 9:15-16.) Based on this goal, the Court determined that a special master should be utilized to review all of the banking records, and trace the money in each of the Patrinicolas' accounts held with Navy Federal. (Order Staying Case (Dkt. No. 50).) The Court discussed this option with the parties during the in person status conference, and the parties agreed this would be the best path forward. (Hearing Tr. 13:17-14:12; 15:5-23; Response by Navy Federal Confirming Agreement to Appoint Special Master and Share Costs (Dkt. No. 52); Agreement to Appoint Special Master by Tony Patrinicola (Dkt. No. 55).) Further, the parties agreed to be held to the Special Master's decision regarding the records. (Hearing Tr. 14:6-12; 16:17-22; Response by Navy Federal Confirming Agreement.)
The Court then appointed Virginia Burdette to serve as the special master. (Dkt. No. 58.) Ms. Burdette serves as a Chapter 7 Trustee, a Chapter 11 subchapter V Trustee, and as the Chapter 12 Trustee for the Western District of Washington. (Order Appointing Special Master at 1 (Dkt. No. 58.) The Court ordered Navy Federal to provide every document and correspondence between the bank and the Patrinicolas to the Patrinicolas and the Court so that both could review them, and the Court could pass along the file to Ms. Burdette. (Hearing Tr. 18:13-19:7.) The Court provided Ms. Burdette with all of the documents and correspondence on August 29, 2023. (Exhibit C.)
C. Special Master's Review and Meeting with Parties
Ms. Burdette reviewed the file and met with the parties on October 10, 2023 to discuss her findings. (R&R at 1-2.) At the conclusion of the meeting, the Patrinicolas continued to assert funds were missing from their accounts. (Id. at 2.) Specifically, they believed they made a $500,000 deposit on September 16, 2022, but Ms. Burdette did not find evidence in the documents to support that claim. (Id.) Following the meeting, Ms. Burdette asked the Court to have the Patrinicolas provide a copy of the front and back of the Chase cashier's check for the $500,000, dated in 2022, as well as a copy of their Chase bank statement for the month of September 2022. (Exhibit D.) Ms. Burdette also asked the Court to have Navy Federal provide the teller receipt for September 16, 2022. (Id.) Navy Federal replied to the request on October 23, 2023. (Exhibit E.) When the Court did not hear back from the Patrinicolas, it issued a Minute Order on November 8, 2023 formally ordering the Patrinicolas to provide the requested documentation by November 27, 2023. (Dkt. No. 69.) On November 17, 2023, the Court received an email from the Patrinicolas acknowledging the Minute Order, but still not providing the documentation. (Exhibit F.) Because the deadline passed without the Court receiving the requested documents, it asked Ms. Burdette to provide a formal written report and recommendation without the documents. The Court now reviews and adopts the R&R.
D. The R&R
Ms. Burdette's R&R provides an explanation of her involvement in the case, her meeting with the parties, and an individualized review of each of the Patrinicolas' account with Navy Federal. (See generally, R&R.) Ms. Burdette found that of the two accounts held in Mrs. Patrinicola's name one was a CD for twelve months, which ended on November 12, 2022. The Patrinicolas received the moneys for this account on November 12, 2022. (R&R at 2.) The other CD in Mrs. Patrinicola's name is currently open and active. (Id.) Ms. Burdette then reviewed the five CDs held in Mr. Patrinicola's name. (Id. at 2-3.) Of the five, two are still open and active. (Id. at 3.) The other three are closed - two of which closed after the CD matured and the moneys were paid out. (Id.) The third account was closed shortly after the Patrinicolas opened it, and the check was returned for insufficient funds. (Id.) Finally, Ms. Burdette reviewed the four accounts the Patrinicolas opened on behalf of a trust in their name. (Id. at 3-4.) Of the four accounts, three matured and the moneys paid out to the Patrinicolas, while one is still open and active. (Id.) Ms. Burdette found there were no issues with any of the CDs, open or closed. (Id. 2-4.)
With regard to the alleged missing $500,000 cash deposit made on September 16, 2022, Ms. Burdette found that there was no credible evidence to support such a deposit occurred. (R&R 4-5.) The Patrinicolas provided a hand written Chase Bank withdrawal form that appears to have been prepared by them. However, these types of forms are available in bank lobbies, and are not confirmation that any withdrawal occurred. (Id. at 4.) Ms. Burdette reviewed two bank teller transactions dated September 16, 2022, but those transactions were traced back to the Patrinicolas open CDs and do not reflect the opening of any additional CDs. (Id. at 4-5.) And because the Patrinicolas did not provide a copy of the Chase cashier's check for the money or a copy of the Chase bank statement for September 2022, which would support their position, there is nothing to suggest Navy Federal is responsible for any missing moneys or mishandling of the Patrinicolas accounts.
The Court finds Ms. Burdette's review and findings of the accounts is sound and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. And because the parties agreed to be held to the Special Master's findings, the Court finds the issues in this case have been resolved and hereby DISMISSES the case with prejudice. Navy Federal's Motion for Summary Judgement (Dkt. No. 35) is DENIED as moot.
The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.
EXHIBIT A
REPORT OF SPECIAL MASTER AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE COURT
Virginia A. Burdette, J.
On August 28, 2023, this Court entered an Order appointing Virginia Burdette as Special Master (Doc #58) to review and analyze the banking records and other documents provided by the parties. The Plaintiffs have alleged that they deposited substantial funds into various Certificates of Deposit with Defendant. Plaintiffs also allege that substantial sums have been withdrawn by the Defendant, without their knowledge or approval, and that these funds remain missing. The Plaintiffs have several checking and savings accounts with Defendant; the funds in these accounts are not at issue and are only discussed in the findings as necessary to “follow the money”.
The Special Master completed her review of all banking records, pleadings and correspondence provided to her by the Court and her review of the docket and pleadings filed therein. On October 10, 2023 a meeting took place between the Special Master and the parties, to go over her preliminary findings. The meeting lasted approximately three hours. At the conclusion of the meeting, Plaintiffs continued to assert funds were missing from their accounts. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend they made a $500,000 deposit On September 16, 2022 despite the lack of documentary evidence to support that claim. At the meeting the Special Master requested that Plaintiffs provide copy of certain documents, including front and back of a purported Chase Cashier's Check dated on or about September 16, 2022, as well as copies of their Chase bank statements for September 2022. The Defendant provided copies of banking and certificate of deposit statements as of September 30, 2023 to Plaintiffs and Special Master. The Special Master provided the parties with a copy of her preliminary findings and also suggested the Plaintiffs review these findings with their accountant or an attorney. On November 8, 2023 the Court issued a Minute Order (Doc # 69) requiring the documents requested of Plaintiffs be provided by no later than November 27, 2023. The response received from the Plaintiffs (Doc # 73) is not responsive. Each Certificate of Deposit (“CD”) is discussed below with the findings.
Attached, as Exhibits to this report, are detailed descriptions of each Certificate of Deposit held by Plaintiffs with banking records to document the transactions.
• Barbara CD #3801
FINDING: there is no issue with this account. Plaintiffs deposited $3,000 for a twelve-month CD on November 12, 2021. Plaintiffs received $3,090.12 on November 12, 2022.
• Barbara CD #3803
FINDING: there is no issue with this account. Plaintiffs purchased the thirty-three month, $100,000 CD with a check drawn on Chase Bank and dated July 30, 2022. The CD opened on August 1, 2023 for $100,000. This CD is Open/Active. Balance on September 30, 2023 was $103,856.59.
• Tony CD #1201
FINDING: there is no issue with this account. Plaintiffs deposited $3,000 for a twelve-month CD on November 12, 2021. Plaintiffs received $3,090.12 on November 12, 2022. The account is closed.
• Tony CD #1203
FINDING: there is no issue with this account. The CD was purchased with a $100,000 check #10002, drawn on Chase Bank dated July 30, 2022. CD #1203 was opened on August 1, 2022, and on August 4,2022, the account was closed because the check was returned for insufficient funds. CD #1203 is closed.
• Tony CD #1204
FINDING: there is no issue with this account, it is a “replacement” for Tony CD #1203. Opened on August 4, 2022 in the amount of $100,000 for 33 months. Purchased with a Cashier's Check in the amount of $ 100,000 from Bank of America. This CD is Open/Active. On September 30,2023 the balance was $103,828.85.
• Tony CD #1205
FINDING: there is no issue with this account. Plaintiffs purchased this $250,000 24 month CD on September 16,2022 by transferring funds out of Trust CD #0604 into Savings #9533 for the purchase. This CD is Open/Active. On September 30, 2023 the balance was $257,802.82.
• Tony CD #0603
FINDING: there is no issue with this account. Opened on September 17,2020 with a $296,756.66 cashier's check drawn on a Bank of America account. The CD was closed and the $297,671.80 balance was used to purchase Trust CD #0604.
• Trust CD #0604
FINDING: there is no issue with this account. Opened on January 21, 2021 using a transfer of funds from Trust CD #0603 in the amount of $297,671.80. The account was closed on September 16, 2022. On that date, its value was $302,994.31. Of those funds, $250,000 was used to purchase Tony CD#1205 and a check was made payable to Plaintiffs for $52,994.31. The account is closed.
• Trust CD #0601
FINDING: there is no issue with this account. Purchased on August 20, 2020 as a $500,000 twenty-four month CD, it matured on August 20, 2022, and the account balance of $510,508.76 was sent by check to Plaintiffs and deposited into a Chase account. The account is closed.
• Trust CD #0602
FINDING: there is no issue with this account. Purchased on September 2, 2020 as a $156,823.24 twenty-four month CD, it matured September 2, 2022. The funds were transferred to savings #1207. The closing balance of $160,106.45 was used to purchase Trust #0605. This account is closed.
• Trust CD #0605
FINDING: there is no issue with this account. Purchased on September 6, 2022 the funds from Trust CD #0602 were transferred to Trust savings #9578. Funds then transferred for purchase of Trust CD #0605, a twenty month CD. CD is open/active. On September 30,2023 the balance was $165,293.25.
• Missing $500,000
FINDING: No credible evidence of a $500,000 cash deposit on September 16, 2022 has been provided. Plaintiffs have provided a hand written Chase Bank withdrawal form, of the type regularly kept in a bank lobby. It appears to have been prepared by the Plaintiff. No receipt, canceled check or bank statement from Chase Bank, which would document the $500,000 withdrawal of funds and deposit into Navy Federal Credit Union has been provided. Plaintiffs suggest two bank teller transaction receipts dated September 16, 2022 support their claim of a $500,000 deposit. The teller receipts reflect the cashing in of Trust CD 7/0604 in the amount of $302,994.31 on September 16, 2022. The teller transaction receipt identified as “Seq: 0010'' at 12:08 p.m. shows a distribution of $52,994.31 by check from Acct (CD #) 0604; leaving a balance of $250,000. The second teller receipt identified as “Seq: 0012” al 12:35 p.m. details the withdrawal of $250,000 from Acct (CD#) 0604 reflecting a zero balance. On the same teller receipt at "Seq 0013” a deposit is made into Tony Savings Acct 9711. The $250,000 was then withdrawn from Tony Savings Acct 9711 to purchase Tony CD #1205. The current funds in Tony CD #1205 were $257,802.82 as of September 30, 2023.
IN SUMMARY, the Special Master finds all cash deposits and/or proceeds from CD closures arc properly accounted for and supported by Defendant's records. The Special Master recommends the relic! requested in Plaintiffs complaint be denied.
EXHIBIT 1
(EXHIBIT 1 Omitted)
VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE MARSHA J. PECHMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiffs TONY PATRINICOLA and (Pro se): BARBARA PATRINICOLA
For the Defendants: DANIEL CULICOVER Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
Reported by: MARCI E.C. CHATELAIN, CCR, RPR, RMR, CRR, Federal Court Reporter
PROCEEDINGS
THE CLERK: The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington is now in session, the Honorable Marsha J. Pechman presiding.
THE COURT: Please be seated.
THE CLERK: This is the matter of Patrinicola versus Navy Federal Credit Union, cause number C23-5137, assigned to this Court.
Will counsel please rise and make their appearances for the record?
MRS. PATRINICOLA: Get up. Get up.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Yeah.
Oh, okay.
I understand you want me to make an introduction; right?
THE COURT: I would like to have you enter your name on the record so that I have a record that shows that you're representing yourself.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Okay. Barbara and
MRS. PATRINICOLA: Tony, you give your name.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Yeah. I'm Tony Patrinicola.
This is my wife, Barbara Patrinicola. And she has the right to answer on my behalf because I have a hearing impairment.
THE COURT: Mr. Patrinicola, can you hear me?
MR. PATRINICOLA: Yes, I can hear you now.
THE COURT: Okay. And I want you to let me know if any time you can't hear me.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Okay. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right? Because I have you wearing some hearing devices that we use here in court. And I want to make sure that they are working properly.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Right.
You know, I'm not quite sure what this court is about.
Could you please tell me what the -- what we're working on?
THE COURT: I will do that in just a minute, but the first thing I need to do in order to create the record is to get everyone's name.
This lady right here, with the headphones on, is taking down every word that's said here in the courtroom.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Excellent, excellent.
THE COURT: And
MR. PATRINICOLA: And when we get into discussions that are critical, I would like her to take the notes, the court recorder.
And then will I be able to get a copy in case we do not agree with certain items?
THE COURT: You can purchase a copy.
Now, the first thing I need to do is to establish who's here for her so she knows who's speaking.
So, Mrs. Patrinicola, could you please tell me your full name?
MRS. PATRINICOLA: I'm Barbara Patrinicola.
MR. PATRINICOLA: And I'm Tony Patrinicola.
THE COURT: Yes. Thank you.
You can be seated.
MR. CULICOVER: Thank you, Your Honor. Daniel Culicover for Navy Federal Credit Union.
THE COURT: Thank you.
Mr. Patrinicola, you can be seated.
First of all, I'm Judge Marsha Pechman. And I'm the judge that has been assigned to this case.
Your case was first filed in state court, and then the defense asked that it be removed to federal court. So that's how you got here, they asked to move from one court system to another.
The other thing I want to talk with you about
MR. PATRINICOLA: Let me repeat something, you are Marsha?
THE COURT: I am Marsha Pechman.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Yeah, Marsha J. Pechman, all right.
Okay. You're the one I've been dealing with for quite considerable time here now.
THE COURT: Well, you haven't dealt with me personally.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Okay.
THE COURT: Okay?
So we're going to see if we can't sort out some issues here.
MR. PATRINICOLA: May I also ask, why is the case not handled in the district court of Tacoma, which is right at my home.
THE COURT: It hasn't been handled in the district court of Tacoma because there was a period of time when the district had not enough judges in Tacoma. And so all of the judges, both Seattle and Tacoma, took Tacoma cases.
If your case goes to trial, it will be tried in Tacoma, but I sit here in Seattle.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Okay. It's just that I think that -- well, first, go ahead, I need to know what we're talking about today.
THE COURT: Okay. So today one of the things I want to talk with you about is who you personally can represent. I also want to talk with you about a plan for how to resolve these issues. I want to talk with the defense about their cooperation with you. And so I'm going to go through a series of those things.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Excellent.
THE COURT: Okay. One of the first things we need to deal with is the fact that you are representing yourself.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Let me clarify that. Now, I have called 20 different lawyers. I have worked with the -- with the Tacoma regional place which recommends lawyers for you. They only came up with one lawyer that would represent us in a fraud case, a bank fraud case, and he said, I am not able to represent you, but we have thousands of lawyers who are working on automobiles or automobile accidents or divorces or this, that, and the other.
I tried desperately to find a representative and there were none or are none in our district of Washington that I -- Tacoma, Seattle.
THE COURT: Well
MR. PATRINICOLA: Also, to add to that, I have been fighting this case now for over two and a half years. I'm the person that's injured, and I feel there is nobody more qualified to tell you or proceed in this case than me. I know this case from beginning to the very end. I have fought this case for two years; and therefore, according to the law, I am capable of representing myself.
THE COURT: Sir, I want to talk with you a little bit about that.
First of all, you may know the facts of your particular case, but you're not a lawyer, and you've never practiced in federal court, so there are procedural rules that will be a problem for you.
Have you read the pro se handbook that was sent to you?
MR. PATRINICOLA: Yes, I have. And I've also been working with the -- with the library, law library in Tacoma. And I've been reading articles, I've been looking at everything. I tried to prepare myself as the very best I can.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. PATRINICOLA: I realize there are rules and regulations. But not being able to find a representative, I hope that you will excuse me if I make small mistakes.
THE COURT: I think that one of the problems, perhaps, is trying to sort out what it is you want.
If you want your accounts to be straightened out and any moneys that you're owed turned over, that's one thing. If you want to file a fraud suit, I understand why there are no lawyers that wish to take that on. Fraud is a very hard thing to prove. And the lawyers may find that fraud is not what they want to take on, but there are many lawyers who would assist you in sorting out a banking problem.
The other thing I want to let you know is that you cannot represent your wife. Your wife has to represent herself.
MR. PATRINICOLA: That's good.
THE COURT: And
MR. PATRINICOLA: I think she's capable. But this case has been handled exclusively by me, so if something comes up, then I will be the person to answer for that.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, you can't answer for her.
She has to answer for herself.
The other thing that I noticed is that some of your -- can you hear me?
MRS. PATRINICOLA: Can you hear her?
MR. PATRINICOLA: Wait a minute. It keeps going in and out.
Okay. I hope it stays. I hear very good, but it goes in and out.
THE COURT: All right. The other thing I want to talk to you about is that some of your accounts appear to be held by a trust.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Yes. I was careful to be sure that what I invested in this bank and in the bank, that I was covered by the amount of money in the trust.
Now, the trust is -- I gave them is a legal document prepared by lawyers, notarized, and it specifies three children of mine who are on this family trust. So that means there's Barbara, myself, and three children. And each one, according to the NCAU Insurance, is insured for 250,000, which covers what I'm attempting to claim.
THE COURT: Well, Mr. Patrinicola, you cannot represent the trust. You
MR. PATRINICOLA: No, I don't intend the represent the trust.
THE COURT: Well
MR. PATRINICOLA: But the trust is a legal document that has to be used in case something happens in this court -in this -- with this bank.
THE COURT: Okay. You cannot make any claims by the trust against the bank, that needs to be done by a lawyer.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Well, then, I have a separate legal issue here if we come to the point where I'm not covered by the jury -- or by the -- yeah, that is something else.
THE COURT: Okay. So you cannot make any claims on behalf of the trust or on behalf of any accounts that are held by the trust, only a lawyer can do that for you.
So I want to make it very clear who you can represent. You can only represent yourself, you cannot represent the trust.
MR. PATRINICOLA: The objective of this trial is to account for the money I invested in this bank.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. PATRINICOLA: And the availability has to match my contracts, my -- the receipts I have, and all of this
THE COURT: All right.
MR. PATRINICOLA: -- and not -- not just verbal argument.
THE COURT: All right. We're going to get to that in a moment.
Do you understand what I have just told you, that you can only represent yourself. You cannot represent your wife, she has to represent herself.
The other thing I want you to know that having a jury trial on your own, without being a lawyer, you'll be held to that standard, is a very difficult thing.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Why is it so difficult?
THE COURT: It's difficult because of the procedural problems. You've never picked a jury before. You've never done a cross-examination.
MR. PATRINICOLA: I was under the understanding that the Court, yourself, had already approved a trial by jury.
THE COURT: I have approved a trial by jury. I am -you are entitled to one. But what I'm trying to tell you is that that is a very difficult task. And I want to make sure that you're prepared to do that, if that's what you decide to do.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Well, I'm up to a difficult task.
And if it -- listen, this bank, Navy Federal, in order to deposit in this bank, you must have had some prior military service. Now, this means I left my wife and my kids and went to fight for our country. I have thousands of people who are -who are in this area who have served, had family members that served, know of people that has served, therefore they are -they should be the people to decide this case. They are the people that are being cheated.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. PATRINICOLA: I do not see -- I do not see where it can become difficult for us to let the people who fought for our country, who are being ripped off by a bank, and then say, well, it's difficult for them to listen to the court case and make a decision on what is presented.
THE COURT: Okay. You do understand that your jury will be made up of all sorts of people, not necessarily veterans or people who have served.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Well, yeah.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. PATRINICOLA: People who could represent this case know people who were in the military, have sons and daughters who were there, who have -- what do you call it -- now, I'm not naive. I do not believe that I am the only victim of this thing. I think there are hundreds of 'em, but I don't think they have the money, I don't think they have the knowledge. The same problem I do, they cannot get representation from a lawyer in this area. There's a lot of problems here that should be looked at. And I do not feel -- as I said, I do not feel I am the only one that is a victim of this bank.
THE COURT: All right. Let me talk to defense counsel.
Counsel, from your perspective, can you tell me what the defense feels this case is about?
MR. CULICOVER: Your Honor, it's difficult for the defense to understand what this case is about.
I believe this case is about misunderstandings in the bank statements by plaintiffs, but there are also allegations of fraud. The allegations of fraud are unclear and -- you know, one of the questions that we have is whether the plaintiffs have put forward enough evidence to, you know, specify what the fraud is, which I think we spelled out in our motion for summary judgment.
But to answer Your Honor's question, no, it is actually quite difficult for us to understand what this case is about.
THE COURT: Have you turned over to the plaintiffs every document or electronic document of any kind that pertains to these 15 accounts?
MR. CULICOVER: Your Honor, we've sent them every account statement, but there are likely some correspondence that have not been turned over in their totality. These are response letters.
So the answer is, I don't know, but we certainly have produced all of our periodic account statements for every account that the plaintiffs held at Navy Federal.
THE COURT: And why haven't you turned over any correspondence to them?
MR. CULICOVER: Your Honor, we have turned over correspondence; I don't know that we've turned over every piece of paper that we received from them.
THE COURT: So it's what they sent you, not what you sent them that you don't know if you've turned over?
MR. CULICOVER: Correct.
THE COURT: Okay. And is there a way for you to figure that out?
MR. CULICOVER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Okay. But
THE COURT: Just a minute, sir. Just a minute, sir. I'll come back to speak with you, but right now I'm talking to the defense counsel.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Okay. Okay. Excuse me.
THE COURT: And we can only speak one at a time. Remember, I told you that the court reporter
MR. PATRINICOLA: I agree. And I apologize.
THE COURT: All right. So from the defense perspective, how do you believe one can best resolve the issue if you set aside fraud?
MR. CULICOVER: Your Honor, I believe that going through the account statements and showing the tracing of money is the best way to resolve the non-fraud-related claims.
THE COURT: And who would the bank suggest that should be?
MR. CULICOVER: I'm sorry, I don't think I understand the question.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, it's obvious that the plaintiffs haven't trusted what it is you've told them in the past, either rightly or wrongly.
MR. CULICOVER: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: So one of the things I'm going to be asking them in a moment is who would they trust.
And I want to start out by finding out, if the Court were to appoint a special master to go through the accounting and make an explanation, would the bank accept that?
MR. CULICOVER: I'd have to check with my client, Your Honor, which I can do.
The bank has already provided two of its higher level executives to try and walk through the account statements and explain them to the plaintiffs. That was insinuated in some of the filings that plaintiffs have made. And that was not accepted by the plaintiffs, which is their prerogative.
But we are interested in trying to resolve this matter. And so if a special master is what the Court recommends, I can certainly take that up with my clients.
THE COURT: Okay. Would your clients be willing to accept a settlement judge?
MR. CULICOVER: Would that be Your Honor or would that be another judge?
THE COURT: No. If I'm the trier of fact or presiding over the jury, I do not do settlements. That would be done by one of the magistrate judges.
MR. CULICOVER: I, again, would have to run that by my clients, but I think that that's promising, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Now back to you, Mr. Patrinicola.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Okay.
THE COURT: Is there someone -- if I were to appoint a neutral person, someone who had expertise in sorting out bank records, would you accept that?
MR. PATRINICOLA: I would accept, and I have, providing -- providing they review the undisputable evidence I have, receipts, cashed checks, and things like that.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. PATRINICOLA: I have a lot of very important information here where I have a receipt for money I put in the bank and it disappeared.
THE COURT: All right. Well, what I'm trying to answer here is if
MR. PATRINICOLA: Yes, I will accept.
THE COURT: If there was a neutral person that the Court selected
MR. PATRINICOLA: Yes, I will definitely accept anybody you want to go over my files.
THE COURT: Okay. Now, then the next issue comes to who's going to pay for it, because I don't have -- the Court does not have funds to do that, but one of the things that could happen is that I could ask both sides to pay half of what it would cost to have someone who has expertise to review this for you.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Fine. I will accept the cost, I will accept the lawyer, if you can find one that will deal with bankruptcy, anything.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, I don't think you've got a bankruptcy case here, but you do have a case about an accounting.
And obviously, there's some misunderstandings or there is some errors that perhaps need to be corrected.
So what I'm looking for is both sides, if I can find a neutral accountant to sit down, if you would share those costs, if you would listen to that particular person and accept what it is they told you.
MR. PATRINICOLA: And the decision that the person would make after review would be a final solution to our problem; is that correct?
THE COURT: If you accepted that, and the bank
MR. PATRINICOLA: Yes.
THE COURT: -- accepted that.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Now, let me give you just a little bit of background why I am in this bank.
Now, my wife and I were very conservative with our retirement funds. We had our money in the two best banks in the country, namely Chase and namely Bank of America; however, these two banks pay only .01 percent on your savings, .01. And we found our retirement fund was beginning to deplete, high cost of living, high taxes, inflation, and everything.
Suddenly, this bank, Navy Federal bank, contacted me and said, hey, we can give you 3 and 4 percent on your money, instead of you getting only .01. So my wife and I reluctantly said, oh, man, that would certainly help us to retrieve some of the -- a lot of the money we're losing from inflation and all this other stuff.
So we went down to the bank and, sure enough, they offered us this and they offered us that and so forth. And we said, okay, it's a bank, it has NCAU Insurance, like the FDIC, let's go for it. And we almost emptied our full account for the promise of getting a better percentage. Then, suddenly, I found my accounts were cancelled for no reason at all. And when I ask how come it was cancelled, I got some very funny answers, like
MRS. PATRINICOLA: Tony.
MR. PATRINICOLA: -- you wrote us a letter to cancel it, and there is no letter. And I would never do that. I have a contract that pays me 30 percent that's not due until 2024. Why would I write somebody and -- that letter can never come to court, I know that. But this is untrue. And the fact that they sucked me in with a high interest rate and then no -- did not pay it. That is why I am here in this court.
THE COURT: I
MR. PATRINICOLA: Justice has to be done.
THE COURT: I understand what you're telling me.
And what I'm trying to do is to see where an error might be made, or a misunderstanding of how to read the accounts, but, you know, obviously, I think the bank would agree with you that if you were owed money by putting into your accounts, the bank owes you that money, but, first of all, we need to sort out what instructions were given, what responses were given
MR. PATRINICOLA: Now -- now
THE COURT: So just hold on. Hold on.
That's one of the things that we have to sort out, and I'm going to ask the bank's representative, counsel here, to make sure that every document received from you and every response from the bank back to you
MR. PATRINICOLA: Yes.
THE COURT: -- is turned over and a copy made for any neutral that we would have review these bank statements.
Counsel, is that something that we can do fairly quickly?
MR. CULICOVER: Absolutely, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. PATRINICOLA: You can
MRS. PATRINICOLA: Tony.
THE COURT: Just a minute. Just a minute.
Can you tell me how fast you can get that done?
MR. CULICOVER: I think by next Wednesday.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. CULICOVER: And, Your Honor, then it would need to be mailed to plaintiff, so it might not arrive by next Wednesday.
THE COURT: Okay. That's one of the things I'm going to talk about next is electronic filing.
Now, I want to -- do you know what electronic filing is, Mr. Patrinicola?
MRS. PATRINICOLA: Do you know what electronic filing is?
MR. PATRINICOLA: What?
MRS. PATRINICOLA: Do you know what electronic filing is?
MR. PATRINICOLA: And filing.
MRS. PATRINICOLA: Electronic filing, do you know that?
MR. PATRINICOLA: Target filing, I'm not sure.
MRS. PATRINICOLA: Tony, electronic filing.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Target filing?
MRS. PATRINICOLA: Electronic filing; electronic; electronic; electronic filing.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Oh, yes, I -- I went to school or I tried to go to a school at the regional court in Tacoma who promises that they will teach you how to do electronic filing, and they didn't have an instructor there anymore.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. PATRINICOLA: I came back again and they says, well, you have to sign up for the next month.
And the second month I went up there for the class; again, they had nobody there.
So from electronic, I have a computer.
THE COURT: Okay. You have a -- you have a computer.
MR. PATRINICOLA: I have a computer, but I'm not versed on how to get to you.
THE COURT: All right. Well, that's
MR. PATRINICOLA: It's like an e-mail address; right?
THE COURT: Okay. Well, there's a way for you to sign up for electronic filing because the Court doesn't keep paper documents .
MR. PATRINICOLA: Yeah.
THE COURT: We only keep electronic documents.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Yeah, I
THE COURT: Stop one second. Let me explain.
One of the things I'm trying to sort out is if defense counsel can send you the documents electronically or if you have to have paper copies sent to you. And if you want to communicate with the Court, then electronic filing is the best way to do that.
So, Mrs. Patrinicola, are you conversant with a computer?
MRS. PATRINICOLA: No, I'm not.
THE COURT: All right. Well, here's one of the problems that you're facing in representing yourself, because the Court keeps electronic documents.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Yeah. I covered this subject with the clerk of the court in your area. And he says, well, if you can't do it, send us the information anyway, and it's what I've been doing.
THE COURT: All right. Well, if that's the way that you need to get your documents, then I'll instruct the defense that they need to send you the documents in paper.
MR. PATRINICOLA: (Inaudible; cross-talking.)
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, I missed that.
MR. PATRINICOLA: I will certainly work very hard to see if I can get this, a little OJT, a little schooling on how to do this.
THE COURT: Okay. Now, what I've heard so far is that the defense is going to get you all of the papers that you sent them and all of the papers they sent you, an accounting of all of the accounts by next Wednesday. They're going to put it in the mail. You may not get it on that day; in other words, you're going to have to watch your mail for when it comes.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: What I am going to do, since I've heard you accept the fact that if I can find a neutral -- a neutral person to do an accounting that you are willing to work with that person, listen to that individual, and accept their decision as to the accounting.
MR. PATRINICOLA. Yes. I will be very happy to work with anybody you choose to go over the files and to list everything I have.
Now
THE COURT: Okay. Now, just wait a second. Let me go back and talk with defense counsel.
You're willing to go back to your client and make such a recommendation?
MR. CULICOVER: Yes, for an independent CPA or someone like that to review the file?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. CULICOVER: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. And then what I would assume is that we will split the cost to do that.
MR. CULICOVER: I will ask my client whether they're willing to do that as well.
THE COURT: All right. Well, then, I'm going to go in search of a qualified individual to review these records and be able to give you an accounting and a report as to what they find in the records and where they trace the money is.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Right, that's what I want to know.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Now, I have another serious question to ask you. You mentioned to me that I should not declare anything that's already in my account. And I have not received a statement from this bank for over a year and a half since we started this fight. Now, I asked you, please, why can't we subpoena the bank or you subpoena the bank to give me a statement?
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Has that been done?
THE COURT: Well, first of all, I never said that you can't have a statement of what's in your account. And in fact, what I believe I just ordered is all of the accounts up to today. So if you haven't received any paperwork, maybe it's because there's no paperwork there to give, but the bank is going to turn over every account that you have with statements as to what's in that account.
MR. PATRINICOLA: I just recently received a book like this from these people. And I counted in there, let me see, hold on, let me read it off to you, if I -- I think I have it here. And in that book -- oh, wait a minute. There was something like, to belong to the bank, I had to pay a $5 fee. 40-some pages of that fee appear, 48 -- about 37 pages of cover sheets, which meant nothing. My checking account, I have about 15, 25 pages. And the checking account was never a question. And old -- the old statements that were years old from 1920 [sic] -- from 2020, which changed a hundred times.
And I had asked, also, the bank, 20 letters or 30 letters, send me a copy of my statement what you have so that I can determine how much damage is done. That has not been done. That has not been done. I'm being ignored.
Now, could I ask this gentleman to tell this Court what he shows in my account at this moment?
THE COURT: Well, he's not here to do that. And I'm not going to ask him to do that right now because that's not what he came prepared to do.
I'm asking him to start again and send you all the correspondence, all the accountings from the time you opened up the accounts through now. So we're going to start fresh because that's what we're going to work off of for finding a neutral to evaluate these accounts.
So you're going to get something by next Wednesday. It's not going to cost you anything because it's part of my order, so that should take care of whatever you think you're missing.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Okay.
THE COURT: All right?
MR. CULICOVER: Your Honor, may I ask a clarifying question?
THE COURT: Yes, of course.
MR. CULICOVER: In our initial disclosures, we sent the plaintiffs every periodic account statement from the time they opened their accounts 'til I think present, which was a couple weeks ago, or maybe a week ago.
In your order now, you just said that you want us to start again and resend all the accounting statements and correspondence.
THE COURT: Yeah.
MR. CULICOVER: Since we've just sent them the account statements, is it okay for us to send them any additional account statements since our initial disclosures, plus the correspondence?
THE COURT: I want you to -- I want you to put together a full packet again because you're going to have to do that for any neutral
MR. CULICOVER: Okay.
THE COURT: -- anyway.
MR. CULICOVER: Thank you for clarifying.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. So everybody's going to start out with all the documents that the bank has. And we'll -- you can review those. If you think there are any documents that are missing, you can supply any supplemental documents you want.
I'm going to try and find a neutral.
Defense counsel is going to go back to his client to get the okay to go forward with this plan.
And, Counsel, if I gave you 48 hours to do that, can you get back to me?
MR. CULICOVER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Okay. But there are many documents.
MRS. PATRINICOLA: That's it.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Okay.
THE COURT: Okay. So let's see if we can make that plan work.
As far as the motion for summary judgment, it's going to be held in abeyance. In other words, I'm not going to work on it, there isn't going to be any response required until we get through this process, okay?
And I will try and find you a neutral to use in the next two weeks.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Okay. That's good.
I would appreciate if you could find an attorney or somebody to work on the papers who are versed on bankruptcy.
Now, I have with me here -- I have brought with me
THE COURT: Sir, you're not asking for -- bankruptcy is entirely another issue for people who are not able to pay their bills.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Okay.
THE COURT: Okay. Bankruptcy is not what you are looking for, I don't believe.
But what I'm going to look for is a certified public accountant or a forensic accountant. A forensic accountant is an accountant that works primarily on court cases to sort out bank statements. But I don't believe you need a bankruptcy lawyer, unless you're telling me that you are unable to meet your obligations that you owe.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Now, we will have the opportunity to sit down with a person who's going to evaluate this case; is that true?
THE COURT: Yes, after they review the documents.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Excellent, excellent.
THE COURT: Okay.
But I'm also expecting that you're going to listen very carefully to what it is they have to say, both of you.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Yeah.
And where will this meeting take place?
THE COURT: Well, I don't know yet, because I don't know where the person's office is going to be.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Yeah.
THE COURT: Since that person hasn't been selected.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Okay. Yeah. Because I would not like a change of venue. I would like to work with you in Tacoma.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. PATRINICOLA: It's next to my home, where I believe these guys are on 5th Avenue, just a few blocks from here; right?
THE COURT: Right.
And I'm here. This is where
MR. PATRINICOLA: We're at their home; I'd rather be at my home.
THE COURT: Okay. I understand. But right now we're at my home, we're not at either one of your homes. This is where my courtroom is.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Yeah.
THE COURT: All right. And you may have to come back here.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Could you please send me a note to be sure that I did not miss the requirements that you have for me?
THE COURT: I am not only -- I am not going to send you a note, I'm going to send you a court order.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Okay. That's even better.
THE COURT: Yeah, that's even better.
MR. PATRINICOLA: I like that.
THE COURT: Okay. A court order means that you have to do it.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Okay. That's good.
THE COURT: All right. Now --
MR. PATRINICOLA: Now, I have one more request.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. PATRINICOLA: I would like to keep this case on the basis of what we are going to determine what happened to all of my money through this -- to this person that's going to do the evaluation. I would not like anymore for somebody to say, close this case because you're not a lawyer, close this case because the main headquarters is in Virginia, and I'm working with a bank there which is normal and so forth, close this case because I don't like the looks of you, or all kinds of stuff. Please let's stop that kind of talk of trying to force you to close the case. We're going to go through this like you said, we're going to do that, and I do not want to be harassed.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, I don't think anybody is going to harass you; I just said that we're not going to move forward on any of the motions that are pending until we get through this process.
So you will get an order that says those current motions are held in abeyance until we go through this process, all right?
MRS. PATRINICOLA: We agree.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Okay.
MR. CULICOVER: Your Honor, may I ask a question?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. CULICOVER: If my client does not agree to either an expert or a settlement judge, what will the process be going forward?
THE COURT: I'll order you to do it.
MR. CULICOVER: Okay. Thank you for clarifying.
And then there are several motions, which I know you just said will be held in abeyance; however, I believe at least one of them is something I would like to address today, which is the motion to strike
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. CULICOVER: -- several filings that the plaintiffs have made accusing me of attempting to bribe the Court.
THE COURT: Okay. Let me ask a question. Did you understand what defense counsel said?
MR. PATRINICOLA: No. I didn't quite hear him.
THE COURT: He basically says that he wants to strike from the record any statements where you claim that he tried to bribe the Court.
MR. PATRINICOLA: I have evidence of that.
THE COURT: And what Court are you talking about?
MR. PATRINICOLA: I'm talking about what I call harassment.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, you're talking bribery of a judge here. What judge are you talking about?
MR. PATRINICOLA: I got so many letters on this basis. I still have them.
THE COURT: I'm sorry, you need to tell me what judge you're talking about because if it's me, that's a serious problem.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Okay. I don't have anything to really add. I await for your decisions.
THE COURT: No, I -- sir
MRS. PATRINICOLA: You've got to answer her question.
MR. PATRINICOLA: What question?
THE COURT: What judge is it that you claim has been -- there's been an attempt to bribe?
MRS. PATRINICOLA: What judge has made the attempt to bribe you?
MR. PATRINICOLA: What?
MRS. PATRINICOLA: What judge has made the attempt to bribe you?
MR. PATRINICOLA: What attempt, to bribe me?
MRS. PATRINICOLA: Yeah.
THE COURT: No. What judge did defense counsel attempt to bribe?
MR. PATRINICOLA: I see where he comes up with an Article X Epsilon, so forth, according to this article that I should be -- the case should be dismissed.
So I go up to the court, to the library for the court in Tacoma and I say, hey, look up this article. Okay, I didn't find any such article.
Now, a legal argument -- a legal document has to be presented that is alive that can be tracked.
THE COURT: Sir
MR. PATRINICOLA: A lot of
THE COURT: Sir, you're not answering my question.
MRS. PATRINICOLA: You've got to listen to her.
THE COURT: Who is the judge that you claim defense counsel tried to bribe?
MR. PATRINICOLA: Who is the judge?
THE COURT: Yeah.
MR. PATRINICOLA: I'm speaking to the librarians.
THE COURT: No. You made some statements that defense counsel tried to bribe a judge; I need to know who that judge is.
MR. PATRINICOLA: I thought these letters came to you. I thought all these letters are addressed to our account number. They must have come to you.
THE COURT: So you think that I'm the judge that he attempted to bribe?
MR. PATRINICOLA: Yes, I really do, because you are the only judge that is working for both of us. And these letters are coming to this account number that we're working with.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, sir, I can assure you that this defense attorney and his law firm has never approached me with a bribe.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Yes, I agree
MRS. PATRINICOLA: Tony
MR. PATRINICOLA: -- because you have not responded to these kind of letters.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. PATRINICOLA: But they were irritating, and they were indicating to me, hey, I'm not going to work on this case, I'm just want -- want to cancel it.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, there has been no attempt to bribe. I'm telling you as the judge in this case. And to make that allegation is very serious.
I am going to grant defense counsel's request to strike those statements because I believe that they are untrue. There has been no attempt to bribe this judge.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Yeah, but all the reason
MRS. PATRINICOLA: Tony, be quiet.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Okay. Go ahead.
THE COURT: All right. So you're going to receive an order that will outline what your obligations are. You should look for that order within the next week.
I will work on what it is I said I was going to work on in finding a neutral. Defense counsel is going to get back to me on his client's agreement to participate in this way. And we're going to move forward and see if we can't resolve this problem, okay?
MR. PATRINICOLA: Now
THE COURT: Okay. Now, defense counsel, do you have any other issues that you want to bring up?
MR. CULICOVER: Yes, Your Honor. There was a filing made, I believe it's Docket No. 47, some of the attachments or enclosures I believe were filed in camera. We didn't get a copy of those in camera filings which might be reasonable; however, we don't know what those were or were not, so it's difficult for us to understand what it is we're dealing with here.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, I can assure you, I haven't looked at them, so they are -- they have not had any influence.
MR. CULICOVER: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Now, for the plaintiffs, do you have any further issues that you want to take up today?
MR. PATRINICOLA: No.
But I wish to apologize to this Court for my intensive try to convince people of what I am after. I may have been a little loud. I may have been a little talkative. I apologize for that.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. PATRINICOLA: But I am fighting for my retirement fund, and this gets me excited.
THE COURT: I understand that, sir. I accept your apology.
And we're going to move forward in a calm and measured manner, and we will work on sorting this out.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Okay.
THE COURT: All right. By the same token, I want you to understand that defense counsel is an officer of the Court, and when you insult him, you insult the Court. And the same thing goes for defense counsel, when you are not cooperative or when you are not patient with the pro se, you also are an officer of the Court, and assist in getting this to a resolution, okay?
All right. Then if there is nothing more that we need to talk about, I'll say this matter is concluded today. And that you have a good day. And you will hear from me shortly.
MRS. PATRINICOLA: Thank you.
MR. PATRINICOLA: Okay. Thank you very much.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. We'll be at recess.
THE CLERK: Please rise. This court is adjourned.
(Court adjourned 10:50 a.m.)
CERTIFICATE
I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter.
Marci E.C. Chatelain, CCR, RPR, RMR, CRR Federal Court Reporter.