Ligato v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., CIVIL ACTION No. 16-5683

MICHAEL LIGATO, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al., Defendants

CIVIL ACTION No. 16-5683

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

March 2, 2018

MEMORANDUM

LYNNE A. SITARSKI U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case arises out of events that took place on May 7, 2015, at Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s branch office in Bensalem, Pennsylvania, which culminated in an altercation between a bank customer, Plaintiff Michael Ligato, and the branch office manager, Defendant Joseph Rumpf. Currently pending before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of Defendants, a motion for partial summary judgment filed on behalf of Counterclaimant Rumpf, (ECF No. 22), and an opposition to summary judgment filed by Plaintiff Ligato, (ECF No. 28). For the following reasons, summary judgment will be GRANTED in favor of Defendants and Counterclaimant Rumpf.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Michael Ligato, ("Ligato") commenced this action on October 31, 2016, against Defendant Wells Fargo ("Wells Fargo") and Defendant Rumpf, ("Rumpf"), alleging state law tort claims based on the events of May 7, 2015. (Compl., ECF No. 1). Specifically, Ligato asserted claims for assault and battery by Rumpf, negligence and vicarious liability of Wells Fargo, and false imprisonment and spoliation of evidence by both Defendants. (Compl., Counts III-VII, ECF 1). Rumpf counterclaimed for personal injury damages based on assault and battery by Ligato. (Countercl., ECF 4).

Jurisdiction is based on diversity, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and by designation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), upon the parties' consent. (Consent and Order, ECF No. 11).

II. THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT RECORD¹

On or about May 5, 2015, Ligato was staying at the El Rancho Hotel in Atlantic City, New Jersey. (DSOF & Pl.'s Answer, ¶ 5). Ligato noticed seven or eight ATM withdrawals from his Wells Fargo bank account that caused him concern. (Deposition of Michael Ligato, taken July 31, 2017,² 54:2-56:18, 57:7-12; Deposition of Joseph Rumpf, taken July 31, 2017, 28:2-29:15, ECF 22-5; DSOF & Pl.'s Answer ¶ 6). That same day, Ligato traveled from Atlantic City to the Bensalem Wells Fargo branch office, to complain about the "unknown" and "confusing" withdrawals from his account. (Ligato Dep., 60:14-23; DSOF & Pl.'s Answer ¶ 7).

Upon arrival at the Bensalem Wells Fargo branch, Ligato spoke with bank branch manager Rumpf.³ (Rumpf Dep., 12:5-13, 28:8-23). Ligato believed that someone from theBensalem branch was stealing money from his account. He shared his suspicion with Rumpf, who processed a fraud claim for Ligato. (Rumpf Dep., 30:17-31:12; DSOF & Pl.'s Answer ¶ 11). Rumpf informed Ligato that it would take about seven business days to investigate the claim. (Rumpf Dep., 29:1-6, 16-21; DSOF & Pl.'s Answer ¶ 10). Ligato described the interaction with Rumpf as "a normal encounter" and "[not] a bad encounter." (Ligato Dep., 65:24-66:5; DSOF & Pl.'s Answer ¶ 13). Ligato and Rumpf had no interactions before that day. (Rumpf Dep., 32:18-33:3; DSOF & Pl.'s Answer ¶ 12). Ligato left the bank without incident and returned to Atlantic City.

After returning to Atlantic City, Ligato noticed further questionable activity related to his Wells Fargo bank account. (Ligato Dep., 64:7-18, 66:9-15). For example, he discovered that his bank account was overdrawn when he attempted to buy a $5 shish-kebab in Atlantic City on May 6, 2015. (Id., 64:14-18; DSOF & Pl.'s Answer ¶ 14). Ligato decided to return to the Bensalem Wells Fargo branch to inquire about the additional questionable activity on his bank statement. (Ligato Dep., 66:9-15, 66:24-67:3).

On May 7, 2015, Ligato traveled from Atlantic City to the Bensalem Wells Fargo branch office. (Ligato Dep., 66:9-15, 66:24-67:3). Ligato entered the bank, and spoke briefly with Rumpf, who was again on duty as bank manager. (Ligato Dep., 66:24-67:5). Ligato then went to the desk of Wells Fargo's personal banker, Darya Holton, and "confronted her," asking whether she had taken his PIN number because she wanted to take his money. (Ligato Dep., 67:9-68:12, 89:19-24). Holton burst into tears. (Id., 68:1). Ligato accused Holton and other Wells Fargo employees of making "unknown" ATM withdrawals from his account. (Rumpf Dep., 36:11-39:8; DSOF & Pl.'s Answer ¶ 16; CSOF, ¶¶ 3, 6).

Rumpf overheard Ligato interacting with Holton, approached Ligato, and asked him to leave the premises. (Ligato Dep., 70:15-71:1; Rumpf Dep., 43:5-15; DSOF & Pl.'s Answer ¶ 17; CSOF ¶ 3). Ligato refused to leave, even when Rumpf informed him that the police would be called. Ligato said he would sit down and wait for the police. During the time he waited for the police to arrive, Ligato continued to try to engage Holton, and told other customers that Wells Fargo was stealing his money. (Ligato Dep., 68:5-7, 70:19-71:12; Rumpf Dep., 43:9-44:10, 45:10-24. DSOF & Pl.'s Answer ¶ 18; CSOF ¶ 3).

Officer Raymond Hartman of the Bensalem Township Police Department responded to the call from the Bensalem Wells Fargo branch office. Officer Hartman spoke to Rumpf and then escorted Ligato out of the branch office. Ligato said, "I'll be back." Officer Hartman went back inside the branch and interviewed Wells Fargo personnel. Both Officer Hartman and Ligato left the premises. (Ligato Dep., 83:12-16, ECF 28-5, 84:16-18; Rumpf Dep., 47:4-48:23. DSOF & Pl.'s Answer ¶ 19; CSOF ¶ 4).

Not long after having been escorted out by Officer Hartman, Ligato returned to the bank. (Ligato Dep., 66:16-22, 89:3-18; Rumpf Dep., 67:16-21. DSOF & Pl.'s Answer ¶ 20). He entered the bank and immediately walked to the desk where Holton was sitting. (Rumpf Dep., 70:10-23, 72:10-22. DSOF & Pl.'s Answer ¶ 22). Rumpf walked from his desk to Ligato and Holton, and Rumpf asked Ligato to leave the premises. Ligato did not leave, and an altercation took place between Ligato and Rumpf.⁴ (Ligato Dep. ECF 28-5, 96:12-20, 97:9-15; Rumpf Dep., 73:1-74:13. DSOF ¶¶ 24, 25). It is undisputed that Bensalem Township Police respondedto the incident, handcuffed and arrested Ligato on the scene, and later charged him with violations of Pennsylvania's criminal statutes. (Ligato Dep. ECF 28-6, 108:18-23; Defs. Exs. H & I, Court Summary and Dockets, Ct. Com. Pl., Bucks Cnty., CP-09-CR-0004134-2015; DSOF & Pl.'s Answer ¶ 26).

Ligato was tried on the charges of intentional, knowing, or reckless simple assault, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2701(a)(1); harassment by subjecting the other person to physical contact, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709(a)(1); and criminal defiant trespass, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3503(b)(1)(i). (Defs. Ex. I, Dockets; DSOF & Pl.'s Answer ¶¶ 26, 27). During his criminal prosecution, Ligato was represented by Attorney Elizabeth Dalton. (DSOF & Pl.'s Answer ¶ 28). Ligato testified in his own defense at his October 29, 2015 criminal trial. (DSOF & Pl.'s Answer ¶ 29). Claiming self-defense, Ligato testified that Rumpf physically assaulted him and that he did not physically assault Rumpf. (Id.). Rumpf also testified that Ligato physically assaulted and injured him, but that he, Rumpf, did not physically assault Ligato. Rumpf was cross-examined by Ligato's counsel, Attorney Dalton. (Rumpf Dep., 102:5-16; DSOF & Pl.'s Answer ¶ 30). Holton and another Wells Fargo employee testified at Ligato's trial. (Rumpf Dep., 113:19-24; DSOF & Pl.'s Answer ¶ 31).

Based on the testimony and evidence presented at the criminal trial, the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas found Ligato guilty of all charges and sentenced him to a maximum of 23 months of confinement. (DSOF & Pl.'s Answer ¶ 32). Ligato was further ordered to pay Rumpf restitution, have no contact with Rumpf, and to undergo a mental health evaluation. (Id.). Ligato did not appeal his convictions. (DSOF & Pl.'s Answer ¶ 33).

As noted above, Ligato instituted this action on October 31, 2016, against Wells Fargo and Rumpf. Discovery has been completed, and the matter is now ripe for consideration on summary judgment.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate only if "'there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'" Cunningham v. M & T Bank Corp., 814 F.3d 156, 160 (3d Cir. 2016) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). To determine whether a movant has met this standard, "the court must view the facts 'in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.'" N.A.A.C.P. v. N. Hudson Reg'l Fire & Rescue, 665 F.3d 464, 475 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007)). The "court 'may not weigh the evidence or assess credibility.'" Goldenstein v. Repossessors Inc., 815 F.3d 142, 146 (3d Cir. 2016) (quoting MBIA Ins. Corp. v. Royal Indem. Co., 426 F.3d 204, 209 (3d Cir. 2005)).

"A dispute about a material fact is 'genuine' only 'if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party.'" Cunningham, 814 F.3d at 160 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). "To be material, a fact must have the potential to alter the outcome of the case." N. Hudson, 665 F.3d at 475 (citing Kaucher v. Cnty. of Bucks, 455 F.3d 418, 423 (3d Cir. 2006)). Disputes over irrelevant or unnecessary facts will not preclude a grant of summary judgment. Id.

"After the movant shows that there is no genuine issue for trial, the non-moving party then bears the burden of identifying evidence that creates a genuine dispute regarding material facts." N. Hudson, 665 F.3d at 475 (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)). Entry of summary judgment is mandated "against a party who fails to make a showing sufficientto establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23. In that case, "there can be no 'genuine issue as to any material fact,' since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts...