Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Edward H. York v. Social Security Administration Office of the

January 25, 2011

EDWARD H. YORK
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Present: The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

O

Jan. 31 hrg vacated

JS-6

Wendy K. Hernandez Not Present n/a Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorneys Present for Defendant(s): Not Present Not Present

Proceedings: (In Chambers) ORDER dismissing motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction Before the Court is Petitioner Edward H. York's ("Petitioner") motion to quash a Social Security Administration subpoena pursuant to The Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 ("RFPA"), 12 U.S.C. §§ 3401 et seq. The Court finds the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local R. 7-15. After considering the moving papers, the Court hereby DISMISSES the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

On December 9, 2010, Petitioner moved for an Order preventing the Social Security Administration Office of Inspector General from compelling Washington Mutual Bank to disclose his personal financial records in connection with an investigation. See Dkt. #1 (Dec. 9, 2010). Petitioner asserts that the Court has jurisdiction over his motion to quash pursuant to RFPA. The RFPA provides customers of financial institutions the right to file a motion to quash administrative summonses of financial records from the institutions. 12 U.S.C. § 3410. However, this right is conditioned on, inter alia, the timely filing of the motion. Specifically, Section 3410 requires customers to file their motion to quash within ten days of service or within fourteen days of the date notice was mailed to the customer. 12 U.S.C. § 3410(a).

"The few courts that have interpreted the procedural aspects of the RFPA have done so narrowly." Siegfried v. Inspector General of U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 163 F.Supp.2d 170 (E.D.N.Y., 2001) (dismissing a bank customer's motion to challenge a subpoena duces tecum issued by United States Department of Agriculture pursuant to the RFPA; the motion was not

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Jan. 31 hrg vacated JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 10-9435 PSG (SSx)

Date January 25, 2011

Edward H. York v. Social Security Administration Office of the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.