Lund v. Wells Fargo Bank

Filing 27

ORDER: Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 19 is granted. Defendant's Motion for Sanctions 23 is denied. As such, defendant's request for oral argument is denied as unnecessary. This case is dismissed. See formal order. Copy of this and formal order sent to pro se plaintiff. Signed on 6/26/2014 by Chief Judge Ann L. Aiken. (rh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Case No.

ROBERT A. LUND,

6:14-cv-00496-AA
0 R D E R

Plaintiff,

v.
WELLS FARGO BANK,
Defendant.
AIKEN, Chief Judge:
This matter arises out of the United State's 1 investigation
into plaintiff Robert Lund's federal income tax liability. Pursuant
to this

investigation,

IRS Agents

served banking institutions,

including defendant Wells Fargo, with administrative summonses to
produce certain financial records. In a previous lawsuit, filed on
February 11, 2014, plaintiff's father, Walter Lund, moved to quash
the summons issued to defendant

("Summons").

See Lund v.

United

States, Case No. 6:14-mc-00048-AA (D.Or. 2014). On May 8, 2014, the

1

As acting though the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS").

Page 1 - ORDER

Court granted the IRS's motion to dismiss Walter Lund's petition to
quash.

Accordingly,

defendant

subsequently

furnished

documents

pursuant to the Summons.
On

February

alleging

that

18,

2014,

defendant

plaintiff
violated

commenced
his

state

this

action,

and

federal

constitutional rights by acting in accordance with the Summons
absent an affirmative court order requiring compliance therewith.
That

same

JPMorgan

day,
Chase

plaintiff
Bank,

filed

N.A.,

an

identical

arising

out

of

circumstances. 2 See Lund v. Chase Bank, Case No.

complaint
similar

against
factual

6:14-cv-00448-AA

(D.Or. 2014). On June 2, 2014, defendant filed the present motion
for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Defendant also
moved to impose sanctions.
For the reasons articulated in Lund v. Chase Bank, defendant's
motion for summary judgment is granted and this case is dismissed.
Nonetheless,

because plaintiff is proceeding pro se and has not

previously been,

either orally or by written order,

instructed

about the seriousness of filing frivolous lawsuits, like those at
issue here, the Court finds the imposition of sanctions improper.
See Frank v. Cascade Healthcare Community, Inc., 2013 WL 6002442,
*4 (D.Or. Nov. 5, 2013). Should plaintiff continue to seek recourse

2

The only meaningful difference between the lawsuits against
Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., relates to the
disposition of the underlying motions to quash. In Lund v. United
States, the Court ruled on the validity of plaintiff's father's
petition and dismissed the action, whereas in Lund v. Chase,
plaintiff filed, and then voluntarily withdrew, his petition
before the Court reached the merits of the IRS's motion to
dismiss.
Page 2 - ORDER

premised on defendant's, or any other party's, adherence to an IRS
summons that was previously litigated to a

final

judgment,

the

Court will entertain a renewed motion for sanctions.
CONCLUSION

Defendant's motion for summary judgment (doc. 19) is GRANTED.
Defendant's motion for sanctions

(doc.

23)

is DENIED.

As such,

defendant's request for oral argument is DENIED as unnecessary.
This case is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this

c3hcfsY June

2014.

Ann Aiken
United States District Judge

Page 3 - ORDER