Card Limited v. MetaBank
Filing
152
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER that 30 Counterclaim is moot and dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 9/29/20 (alt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH
CARD LIMITED, LLC, a Utah Limited
Liability Company,
Plaintiff,
v.
METABANK, dba META PAYMENT
SYSTEMS, National Banking Association,
Defendant and
Counterclaimant,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE COUNTERCLAIMANT
METABANK’S [30] COUNTERCLAIM
AGAINST COUNTERCLAIM
DEFENDANT CARD LIMITED ON THE
BASIS OF MOOTNESS
Case No. 2:16-cv-00980
District Judge David Nuffer
v.
CARD LIMITED, LLC, a Utah Limited
Liability Company,
Counterclaim
Defendant.
A previous memorandum decision and order (“Previous Order”) 1 in this case granted
Defendant MetaBank’s (“MetaBank”) for Summary Judgment and dismissed—with prejudice—
Plaintiff Card Limited’s (“Card Limited”) Amended Complaint. 2 That previous order also
identified a potential concern with MetaBank’s remaining counterclaim in this case. 3
Sealed Memorandum Decision and Order Granting Defendant’s [88] Motion for Summary Judgment; Finding
Moot the Remaining Requests for Relief in Defendant’s [88] Motion, Plaintiffs’ [93] Motion For Partial Summary
Judgment and Defendant’s [89] Motion to Exclude Expert Opinions and Testimony; Providing Notice Under
Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 56(F) Regarding Potential Summary Judgment on MetaBank’s [30] Counterclaim
and Requiring Responsive Briefing; and Vacating Final Pretrial and Trial Dates, docket no. 146, filed under seal
August 7, 2019.
1
2
Id. at 13.
3
Id. at 11.
MetaBank’s remaining counterclaim seeks declaratory judgment that it is the “exclusive
owner” owner of any funds that remain in the operating accounts used in association with the
prepaid debit card program that is at issue in this case. 4 But the previous order recognized that
neither party can claim ownership to these funds because both parties acknowledged that these
remaining funds “are likely subject to the claims of consumers, the duty of escheatment, and
subject to state laws of unclaimed property.” 5 Because of this issue, the court ordered responsive
briefing from the parties. 6
In its responsive brief, MetaBank agreed that its counterclaim should be dismissed
without prejudice on grounds of mootness because the previous order acknowledged the parties’
concession regarding the status of the ownership of funds remaining in the operating accounts. 7
But in its responsive brief, Card Limited raised an entirely new issue: that under a 2015
Indemnification Agreement between MetaBank and Card Limited, Card Limited assumed
responsibility for handling all unclaimed property and escheatment processes related to the
prepaid debit card programs it was managing. 8 Because Card Limited is the party responsible for
the Escheatment Processes, Card Limited asserts that all funds remaining in the operating
accounts should be remitted to Card Limited for appropriate distribution. 9
Although it is concerning that Card Limited would raise this new issue after its own
complaint has been dismissed (especially because Card Limited is once again seeking
4
Answer to Amendment Complaint and Counterclaim at 12, docket no. 30, filed September 13, 2017.
5
Previous Order at 10-11.
6
Id. at 13.
Defendant’s Brief Regarding Disposition of Declaratory Judgment Action Counterclaim at 2, docket no 147, filed
August 21, 2019.
7
Plaintiff’s Response Brief Re Disposition of Declaratory Judgment Counterclaim and Request for Evidentiary
Hearing at 3, docket no. 148, filed September 3, 2019.
8
9
Id. at 4.
2
entitlement to funds in the operating accounts), because MetaBank has acknowledged that its
counterclaim is moot, there is no longer subject matter jurisdiction over the case. “[B]ecause the
existence of a live case or controversy is a constitutional prerequisite to federal court
jurisdiction[,]” no subject matter jurisdiction exists over claims that are moot 10. “Without a live,
concrete controversy,” there is no “jurisdiction to consider claims no matter how meritorious.” 11
And in the absence of subject matter jurisdiction a case must be dismissed without prejudice. 12
MetaBank’s counterclaim is therefore dismissed without prejudice as moot and the case
will be closed.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Counterclaimant MetaBank’s Counterclaim 13 is MOOT
and is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The clerk is directed to close the case.
Signed September 29, 2020.
BY THE COURT
________________________________________
David Nuffer
United States District Judge
Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Bureau of Reclamation, 601 F.3d 1096, 1109 (10th Cir.2010) (quoting Disability
Law Ctr. v. Millcreek Health Ctr., 428 F.3d 992, 996 (10th Cir.2005)).
10
11
Id. (quoting Habecker v. Town of Estes Park, 518 F.3d 1217, 1223 (10th Cir.2008)).
12
Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp., 434 F.3d 1213, 1218 (10th Cir. 2006).
13
Answer to Amendment Complaint and Counterclaim, docket no. 30, filed September 13, 2017.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?