LIT COMMENTARY
Calculated Chaos – Zion’s Bancorporation’s Alarming Affiliations Exposed in Financial Fiasco
In a stunning exposé, the calculated decision-making of Zion’s Bancorporation (“ZB”) has come under intense scrutiny as their deliberate associations unravel into a full-blown financial crisis. The spotlight now shines unforgivingly on their strategic selection of legal representation, including an unscrupulous debt collecting agency, and a deeply troubling partnership with “Vivint”, a home security provider marred by scandal.
ZB’s relentless pursuit of nearly $400,000 in owed funds led them down a treacherous path with a debt collecting agency notorious for its dubious practices. Astonishingly, ZB’s handpicked agency managed to outmaneuver their efforts, leaving the owed funds tantalizingly out of reach. This agency’s history of law-breaking, intimidation, and harassment has spawned an intricate web of entities designed to obfuscate complaints, painting a picture of calculated deception.
However, the intrigue doesn’t end there. ZB’s entanglement with Vivint, a company marketing home security solutions alongside financing packages, is proving to be a calculated gamble gone awry. Behind the veneer of security lies a disconcerting reality – Vivint carries an abysmal F rating from the Better Business Bureau (BBB), accompanied by a mounting chorus of disgruntled customers. Even judicial authorities are taking notice of the company’s dubious practices.
As the layers of this elaborate saga continue to unravel, ZB finds itself not only facing financial turmoil but also enduring a barrage of industry-wide condemnation. The narrative surrounding ZB’s actions has evolved into a cautionary tale, serving as a stark reminder that strategic partnerships with tarnished entities can set off a chain reaction of catastrophic consequences.
The calculated chaos ensuing from ZB’s decisions resonates as a stark warning to all players in the financial arena, highlighting the perils of sacrificing ethical considerations for the allure of financial gain. In a landscape where trust is paramount, ZB’s headline-making missteps underscore the enduring impact of choices that prioritize short-term wins over long-term integrity.
R U L E O F L A W
“When judges sacrifice the rule of law to find rights they favor, I fear the people may one day find that their new rights, once proclaimed so boldly, have disappeared because there is no longer a rule of law to protect them.”https://t.co/yr7Rr63EES— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) August 15, 2023
ZB’s APPROVED AGENTS
LIT’s MINISCULE SAMPLING OF THE EGREGIOUS AND UNLAWFUL DEBT COLLECTING PRACTICES BY CAPITAL LINK MANAGEMENT, LLC, THEIR MANY OTHER ENTITIES AND INCLUDES A PEEK AT THEIR ROGUE OWNERS
Received a call from a Texas number (214) 483-1616.
The message said that someone would come to my house the following day between 12-2 to deliver some sealed documents.
I needed 2 pieces of ID and a witness.
I called the number given on the message (855) 264-9132 and was to speak with a Jason Reid. No Jason Reid works there. After much discussion and questioning, I thought they seemed legitimate.
They claimed to transfer me to their legal department So, I authorized a payment by email and fax.
I didn’t feel comfortable afterwards, so I started some investigating.
know, wrong order.
immediately cancelled payment and closed my account.
I called the (855)264-9132 number back and told them what I did and requested written validation of the debt, original balance, etc. to be sent to me via the US postal service.
They got very angry, yelled, told me that they could not send me what I requested, but they promised to get my money.
The man claimed that everything was being recorded and that the recordings would be sent to my bank.
The Attorney General’s office warned that debt collectors NEVER are to come to your house and should Always be willing to send you validation of the original debt.
They also said that no threats of any kind can be made.
The man I spoke to at Piccionne & Rinker said his name was Henry.
He admitted to me that the company uses several different names.
The collections agency the bank gave me was as the owner of the debt was NOT the same one given by Piccione & Rinker.
Definitely a stressful lesson learned. Hope this helps anyone that may be experiencing this.
I got a phone call from these people on Monday and immediately went into a hunt to find the people in charge whatever they’re doing. Like most, I was told I missed legal papers being delivered. Called trying to get more information and every single time I was hung up on. So, here is what I’ve found.
The alleged debt is originally through FlexShopper. It had been sold over and over again until it reached a company called JTM Capital Management. JTM Capital Management hired a company called Capital Link Management LLC to collect the debt on their behalf. Capital Link Management LLC owns Skypoint Acquisitions.
It’s almost impossible to get anyone to answer a question, let alone respond. This is the typical Buffalo New York debt game. They all hide in layers of LLC so that you will give up trying to find them.
Samuel Piccione is the owner of Capital Link Management LLC which owns Skypoint Acquisitions. His Facebook page – https://www.facebook.com/spiccione1
His cell phone numbers are (716) 392-0675 and (716) 563-1641.
The contact information for Capital Link Management LLC (They will lie to you on the phone and every employee is apparently a director of operations)
100 Corporate Parkway STE 106
Amherst, NY 14226
455 COMMERCE DR SUITE 7
AMHERST, NEW YORK, 14228
Phone: (855) 797-6909
Fax: (716) 837-1237
E-mail: support@capitallinkmanagement.com
Skypoint Acquisitions (Claims to be at a separate office, knowing these low lives, they’re probably in the same office)
50 Alcona Ave
Buffalo, NY 14226
Phone: (866) 801-8583
He conveniently uses his wife on most legal documents, DENISA PICCIONE. You can find her on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/denisa.piccione
“The Court finds that Capital Link’s October 29, 2020 text message to Ms. Carter violated the FDCPA.”
Carter v. Capital Link Mgmt., 614 F. Supp. 3d 1038, 1049 (N.D. Ala. 2022)
“ Plaintiff’s motion to enforce settlement agreement (Docket No. 45) be granted in part and Plaintiff awarded attorneys’ fees as the prevailing party in the amount of $1,590”
Coleman v. Capital Link Mgmt., 3:21-cv-0271, at *6 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 24, 2022)
Capital Link only filed an active Surety bond in Texas between May 2018 – July 2021.
VIVINT
“I’m going to make sure that Vivint never sells to you again” – ZB’s Debt Collector, Piccione
Perfection Collection did not hold an active surety bond in 2018, when Moreno sued. Despite the fact that Perfection Collection is unlawfully performing debt collection activities in Texas against Texas residents like Moreno, no damages were awarded by Chief Judge Lee “It’s me against you” Rosenthal, SDTX.
IN THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR UTAH COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH
MOUTAIN RUN SOLUTIONS, LLC,
a Utah Limited Liability Company,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CAPITAL LINK MANAGEMENT, LLC,
a Utah Foreign Limited Liability Company,
Defendant.
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, MOUNTAIN RUN SOLUTIONS, LLC, (“Plaintiff,” or “MRS”) by and through undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Utah R. Civ. P. 7, 64A, 64C, and 64D, hereby submits to this Court Plaintiff’s Motion for Prejudgment Writ of Attachment, and Writ of Garnishment.
Relief Sought and Grounds Therefor
Plaintiff seeks a writ of attachment and writ of garnishment from this Court, and requests permission to take possession of property currently held by Defendant, CAPITAL RUN SOLUTIONS, LLC, [LIT: DIFFERENT NAME FROM PETITION] (hereafter “Defendant,” or “CRS”), for the purpose of securing Plaintiff’s interest in monies and assets belonging to, and owed to Plaintiff as of June 30, 2022, for the abandonment of Defendant’s contractual duties under the Parties’ Collection Agreement (hereinafter the “Agreement”).
Plaintiff additionally prays for the issuance of a prejudgment writ of garnishment.
The basis for this motion is outlined in Utah R. Civ. P. 64A, 64C, and 64D, the Verified Complaint, and Affidavit of Brian Fuller filed contemporaneously herewith.
Statement of Facts as Alleged in Verified Complaint
1. Plaintiff is a limited liability company located in Orem, Utah.
2. Plaintiff is a company that specializes in purchasing non-performing receivables1 in all industries.2
3. Plaintiff started operations on or about May 2015, as Perfection Collection, LLC.3
4. In 2019, Plaintiff changed its name from Perfection Collection, LLC, to Mountain Run Solutions, LLC.4
5. Defendant is a third-party collection agency that specializes in, but not limited to, the collection of consumer, commercial, installment loan, and medical debt.5
6. On January 6, 2015, agents for Defendant, Jonathan Rinker (“Mr. Rinker”), and Samuel Piccione (“Mr. Piccione”) entered in to, and signed, the Agreement on behalf of, and for Defendant, with Plaintiff in effort to recover non-performing receivables on behalf of Plaintiff.6
1 A “non-performing Receivable means a Receivable (i.e., monies) that becomes 90 days past due.”
See; https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/non-performing-receivable (last visited July 5, 2022).
2 Affidavit of Brian Fuller, ¶ 4.
3 Id. at 5.
4 Id. at 6.
5 Defendant’s operated its third-party collection agency under the name of previous name of Commerce Recovery and Capital Management, LLC.
6 See Collection Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit 1; see also Fuller Aff. at ¶ 7.
Are there consequences for the legal debt collecting law breakers in Texas? Y’all decide. https://t.co/BFcM7YZQs4
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) August 21, 2023
7. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, Plaintiff agreed that it would assign delinquent accounts of Plaintiff it owned with Defendant for collect efforts. 7
8. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, Defendant agreed that it was to take “all
reasonable steps to collect Accounts assigned to it (Defendant). 8
9. Defendant accepted a forty (40) percent commission “on any payments that debtors send directly to Client (Plaintiff) for assigned Account. . .”9
10. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, Defendant was required to, and agreed that “[a]ll funds collected on Accounts shall be paid monthly minus the Agency’s (Defendant’s) fee.”10
11. Plaintiff started placing accounts with Defendant shortly after the Parties signed the Agreement.11
12. Plaintiff continued placing accounts with Defendant until December 2020. 12
13. In June of 2021, Plaintiff became concerned with Defendant’s ability to remit payments to Plaintiff from Defendant’s successful collection efforts.13
14. In anticipation of the Agreement being repudiated by Defendant, Plaintiff requested adequate assurance of performance by Defendant. 14
7 Id. at ¶ 1; Fuller Aff. at ¶ 8.
8 Id. at ¶ 2; Fuller Aff. at ¶ 9.
9 Id. at ¶ 5; Fuller Aff. at ¶ 10.
10 Id. at ¶ 7; Fuller Aff. at ¶ 11.
11 Fuller Aff. at ¶ 12.
12 Id. at ¶ 13.
13 Id. at ¶ 14.
14 Id. at ¶ 15.
15. On June 23, 2021, agent for Plaintiff, Chris Carter (“Mr. Carter”) contacted Defendant to discern whether Defendant was going to remit amounts owed from the first half of May 2021.15
16. Specifically, Mr. Carter emailed Defendant requesting if Defendant is going to remit $48,482.96 that was due and owing. 16
17. On June 29, 2021, after Defendant failed to remit the amount owed or even communicate with Plaintiff, Mr. Carter emailed Defendant again requesting whether the funds would be paid that day. 17
18. Again, Defendant failed to remit any payments due and owning as required under the Agreement.18
19. On June 30, 2021, agent for Plaintiff, Brian Fuller (“Mr. Fuller”) contacted agent for Defendant, Mr. Piccione, concerning the failure to remit payments pursuant to the Parties’ Agreement.19
20. Mr. Piccione confirmed that Plaintiff would receive a payment the following day. 20
21. Additionally, Mr. Piccione confirmed with Plaintiff that Defendant would cure all remaining outstanding amounts owed. 21
22. On July 1, 2021, Defendant made a payment of $48,482.00 for the first half of the amount owed for May 2021.22
15 Id. at ¶ 16; see also Complaint Verified, ¶ 21.
16 Id. at ¶ 17; Complaint at ¶ 22.
17 Id. at ¶ 18; Complaint at ¶ 23.
18 See Exhibit 1; see also Fuller Aff. ¶ 19; Complaint at ¶ 24.
19 Fuller Aff. ¶ 20.
20 Id. at ¶ 21.
21 Id. at ¶ 22
22 Id. at ¶ 23.
23. Nevertheless, Defendant still owed the outstanding balance for May 2021 of $40,016.36.23
24. On July 19, 2021, after Defendant failed to further remit any payments for the outstanding balance, Plaintiff contacted Defendant. 24
25. Specifically, Mr. Carter emailed three of Defendant’s agents, Mr. Piccione, Mr. Rinker, and “Denisa,” requesting that the second half of May 2021 remit be paid. 25
26. Defendant failed to respond.26
27. On July 22, 2021, Mr. Fuller contacted Mr. Piccione via text message. 27
28. Mr. Fuller informed Mr. Piccione that Defendant has failed not only to remit the second half of May 2021’s payments, but Defendant has also failed to remit June 2021 payments.28
29. Mr. Piccione asserted that on July 23, 2021, Defendant would send Plaintiff the second half of May 2021’s payment, and both of July2021’s payments. 29
30. Defendant, again failed to remit any payments as promised. 30
31. Mr. Carter then sent Mr. Piccione text message on July 23, 2021, inquiring whether Defendant wired the outstanding payments as promised.31
32. Defendant, again, failed to respond.32
23 Id. at ¶ 24.
24 Id. at ¶ 25.
25 Id. at ¶ 26.
26 Id. at ¶ 27; Complaint at ¶ 31.
27 Id. at ¶ 28.
28 Id. at ¶ 29.
29 Id. at ¶ 30
30 Id. at ¶ 31.
31 Id. at ¶ 32; Complaint at ¶ 37.
32 Id. at ¶ 33.
33. Plaintiff then attempted to contact Defendant on July 29, 2021, concerning the past due outstanding payments.33
34. Defendant ignored this message as well. 34
35. Finally, almost a month later, Defendant wired Plaintiff a $30,000.00 payment.35
36. On September 15, 2021, Mr. Fuller emailed Defendant’s agents, Mr. Piccione , Mr. Rinker, and Denisa, concerning Defendant’s past due and owning amounts. 36
37. Mr. Fuller requested that in order for Defendant to resolve all outstanding balances that Defendant remit a payment of $30,000.00 by September 17, 2021. 37
38. Thereafter, Defendant would be required to remit payments of $30,000.00 on the first and fifteenth of each month going forward until all past due and owing remits are resolved.38
39. Furthermore, Plaintiff notified that if Defendant cannot or will not resolve the outstanding, past due amounts by the expected timeline, Plaintiff will require Defendant from ceasing to run any future payments on accounts owned by Plaintiff.39
40. Unbelievably, in response to Plaintiff, Mr. Piccione made threats to Mr. Fuller. 40
41. Specifically, Mr. Piccione made threats such as,
a. Don’t think I can’t just take a flight over to Utah.
33 Id. at ¶ 34.
34 Id. at ¶ 35.
35 Id. at ¶ 36.
36 Id. at ¶ 37.
37 Id. at ¶ 38.
38 Id. at ¶ 39.
39 Id. at ¶ 40.
40 Id. at ¶ 41.
J U S T T H E T R U T H
A word of advice. Save lives by reading and sharing the blog at https://t.co/2gANeGoLRF. Don’t be that dead person named in a Harris County District Court civil proceeding for a wrongful death at the hands of @HCAHouston @HCAhealthcare pic.twitter.com/0kuFDd5JiZ— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) August 23, 2023
b. I know where you live.
c. I could be at your doorstep at any time.
d. You’re acting all tough by sending that email but if we were face to face you would be scared shitless.
e. I’m going to make sure that Vivint never sells to you again.
f. I’m going to make sure the Deacon of your church knows you’re a liar and a scam artist.
g. If I’m going down, I’m going to take you down with me. 41
42. Stunningly, after the threatening comments by Samuel, Defendant remitted a payment of $20,000.00 on September 17, 2021.42
43. Defendant then made two additional $20,000.00 payments, one October 1, 2021; and the second on October 19, 2021.43
44. In total, Defendant remitted $90,000.00 out of $488,547.00 owed to Plaintiff. 44
45. Defendant owes an amount of not less than $398,547.00 to Plaintiff. 45
46. As a result of Defendant breach of the Parties’ Agreement, it has become necessary for Plaintiff to prosecute these claims in order to attempt to recover injuries caused by Defendant.46
41 Id. at ¶ 42.
42 Id. at ¶ 43.
43 Id. at ¶ 44.
44 Id. at ¶ 45.
45 Id. at ¶ 46.
46 Id. at ¶ 47.
Argument
Plaintiff respectfully requests that it be immediately granted, and given, prejudgment permission to execute against any and all bank accounts maintained by Defendant, and that Plaintiff be granted, and given, prejudgment permission to execute against any other assets maintained by Defendant; including but not limited to, bank accounts, or any other office equipment owned by Defendant, up to a value of not less than $398,547.00.
Plaintiff meets the criteria for issuance of a prejudgment writ as detailed by Utah R. Civ. P. 64A(c)(1)-(3), accordingly, grounds exist for the issuance of the pre-judgment writ in accordance with Utah R. Civ. P. 64A(c)(4)-(10).
I. PLAINTIFF MEETS THE REQUIREMENT OF UTAH R. CIV. P. 64A(c) FOR ISSUANCE OF A PREJUDGMENT WRIT.
Utah R. Civ. P. 64A(c)(1)-(3) requires “that the property is not earnings and not exempt from execution; and. . . the writ is not sought to hinder, delay or defraud a creditor of defendant; and. . . [there is] a substantial likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits of the underlying claim.”
Each of those elements is met in the instant case.
The proposed property is: (a) Cash Assets and Accounts Receivable; (b) Office Equipment; (c) Other Equipment; (d) Computers; and (e) other property which may be discovered.
The proposed property subject to writ “is not earnings and is not exempt from execution.” 47
Plaintiff has no knowledge any of Defendant’ other creditors.
This writ is “not sought to hinder, delay or defraud a creditor of Defendant.”48
Finally, Plaintiff posits there is a substantial
47 Utah R. Civ. P. 64A(c)(1).
48 Id. at (c)(2).
likelihood that Plaintiff will prevail on the merits of this action based on the facts outlined herein.49
Utah R. Civ. P. 64A(c)(5) through (c)(10) requires:
[T]hat the defendant has assigned, disposed of or concealed, or is about to assign, dispose of or conceal, the property with intent to defraud creditors; or that the defendant has left or is about to leave the state with intent to defraud creditors; or that the defendant has fraudulently incurred the obligation that is the subject of the action; or that the property will materially decline in value; or that the plaintiff has an ownership or special interest in the property; or probable cause of losing the remedy unless the court issues the writ.50
Although Plaintiff only need to meet one of the elements in Utah R. Civ. P. 64A(c)(4) through (c)(10), Plaintiff meets Utah R. Civ. P. 64A(c)(5), and (c)(7) through (c)(10).
Plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if a writ is not issued because there is a substantial risk the Defendant will attempt, or already has disposed of or concealed any amounts owed to Plaintiff.51
Defendant registered with the Utah Division of Corporations and Commercial Code as foreign limited liability company collection agency on April 25, 2018.
As outlined in the Statement of Facts, Plaintiff has ownership and special interest in the collection accounts received by Defendant, and has a substantial risk of losing this remedy unless this Court issues the requested writ. 52
Moreover, because of breach of contract by Defendant, Plaintiff’s property has a substantial risk of losing all monies that Defendant was contracted to recover because Defendant was successful in their collection efforts.
49 Id. at (c)(3).
50 Id. at (c)(5) through (c)(10).
51 Id. at (c)(5); and Fuller Aff. at ¶¶ 45-46
52 Id. at (c)(9) and (c)(10); see also, Complaint Verified; and Fuller Aff., generally.
Defendant placed these funds it collected in trust on Plaintiff’s behalf.
Defendant’s failure to remit the funds to Plaintiff breached their fiduciary duty to Plaintiff. Specifically, Defendant engaged in a fiduciary activity when it began holding funds owed to Plaintiff in trust.
Furthermore, Plaintiff has substantially performed and relied on Defendant’s promises under the Parties’ Agreement.
Defendant breached the contract by failing to abide by the Agreement terms contained within the contract.
Defendant’s failure to abide by the terms of the Agreement are in bad faith, grossly negligent, malicious, or intentional.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, Plaintiff suffered considerable damages including both general and special, in the past and in the future.
For all these reasons, Plaintiff satisfies the requirements of Utah R. Civ. P. 64A for the issuance of a writ of attachment.
II. Plaintiff Meets the Requirements for a Writ of Attachment Stated in UTAH R. CIV. P. 64C(b).
Utah R. Civ. P. 64C(b) requires, before the issuance of a writ of attachment, that the Plaintiff show “(1) that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff. . . (2)(i) that the action is upon a contract or is against a defendant who is not a resident of this state or is against a foreign corporation not qualified to do business in this state; or . . . (2)(ii) the writ is authorized by statute; and . . . (3) that payment of the claim has not been secured by a lien upon property in this state.”53
53 Utah R. Civ. P. 64C.
Thievin’ Houston Lawyer Clay Vilt Caught Scammin’ $21K in Excess Funds from Decedant’s Estate – Laws In Texas https://t.co/NAE70qbMQy
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) August 23, 2023
Here, there is an enforceable contract, in writing, between Plaintiff and Defendant.54
Specifically, Plaintiff entered into the Agreement with Defendant on January 6, 2015, for the sole purpose of collecting on default accounts.55
Defendant failed to abide by the Agreement by refusing to remit the funds collected on behalf of Plaintiff.56
Additionally, Defendant refused to cure any breaches.57
Defendant’s interference with the Parties’ Agreement caused Plaintiff to lose the benefit of the contract.
At minimum, Defendant owe Plaintiff no less than $398,547.00, for Defendant’s material breaches of the Agreement.
Therefore, Defendant are indebted to Plaintiff.
The amounts owed to Plaintiff by Defendant are the direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach of fiduciary duties, intentional or negligent interference with the Agreement, and the amounts owed to Plaintiff are unsecured.
Accordingly, all the elements for issuance of a writ of attachment have been met.
III. Plaintiff has an Extremely High Likelihood of Prevailing on the Merits.
All that must be shown in a breach of contract action is (1) that there was a contract; (2) Plaintiff complied with the terms of that contract; (3) Defendant breached the contract; resulting in (4) Plaintiff’s damages.
Here, all four elements of the claim are strongly supported by the contract (Collection Agreement), and Defendant’s breach of fiduciary duty.
54 See Exhibit 1; see also, Fuller Aff. at ¶ 7.
55 Id.; Fuller Aff. at ¶¶ 7-8.
56 Fuller Aff. at ¶¶ 10-39, and 46.
57 Id.
Accordingly, Plaintiff has an extremely high likelihood of prevailing on the merits of its breach of contract claim.
Specifically, the contract makes plain the performance required of each party. 58
Defendant entered into the Agreement with Plaintiff for the specific purpose of Defendant attempting to collect on past due receivables owned by Plaintiff.59
Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, Defendant were required to take all reasonable steps to collect on the past due receivables owned by Plaintiff, from which, Defendant would receive a 40% commission from amounts recovered.60
Pursuant to the Agreement, Defendant will be responsible for all collection efforts performed on behalf of Plaintiff.”61
Additionally, Defendant fraudulently retained all funds collected on behalf of Plaintiff, without remitting the funds owed to Plaintiff. 62
Defendant breached its fiduciary duty by failing to remit the funds collected on behalf of Plaintiff. Plaintiff performed its contractual duties pursuant to the Agreement.63
Defendant, on the other hand, failed to perform its obligations by materially breaching the Agreement, and breaching the good faith and fair dealings owed to Plaintiff, breaching the fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiff.64
Defendant is fully aware of the amounts owed to Plaintiff.65
58 See generally, Exhibit 1.
59 See Exhibit 1; Fuller Aff. at ¶¶ 8-10.
60 Id.; and Fuller Aff. at ¶¶ 9-10.
61 Id. at ¶ VI.
62 Fuller Aff. at ¶ 46.
63 See generally, Exhibit 1
64 Id., see also, generally, Fuller Aff.
65 See Fuller Aff. at ¶ 46.
ON FIRE ON FRIDAY
GCSO Bodycam Withheld after Attempted Murder of Patrick Cline by Andrew Lehman in Galveston – Laws In Texas https://t.co/0VJiK7fCeZ
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) August 18, 2023
Accordingly, Plaintiff has an extremely high likelihood of prevailing on the merits of its breach of contract claim.
Specifically, the contract makes plain the performance required of each party. 58
Defendant entered into the Agreement with Plaintiff for the specific purpose of Defendant attempting to collect on past due receivables owned by Plaintiff.59
Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, Defendant were required to take all reasonable steps to collect on the past due receivables owned by Plaintiff, from which, Defendant would receive a 40% commission from amounts recovered.60
Pursuant to the Agreement, Defendant will be responsible for all collection efforts performed on behalf of Plaintiff.”61
Additionally, Defendant fraudulently retained all funds collected on behalf of Plaintiff, without remitting the funds owed to Plaintiff. 62
Defendant breached its fiduciary duty by failing to remit the funds collected on behalf of Plaintiff. Plaintiff performed its contractual duties pursuant to the Agreement.63
Defendant, on the other hand, failed to perform its obligations by materially breaching the Agreement, and breaching the good faith and fair dealings owed to Plaintiff, breaching the fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiff.64
Defendant is fully aware of the amounts owed to Plaintiff.65
58 See generally, Exhibit 1.
59 See Exhibit 1; Fuller Aff. at ¶¶ 8-10.
60 Id.; and Fuller Aff. at ¶¶ 9-10.
61 Id. at ¶ VI.
62 Fuller Aff. at ¶ 46.
63 See generally, Exhibit 1
64 Id., see also, generally, Fuller Aff.
65 See Fuller Aff. at ¶ 46.
Accordingly, it is evident that Plaintiff fully performed all its obligations, and in fact exceeded the performance required.
Meanwhile, Defendant failed to perform and left with no less than $398,547.00, owed to Plaintiff.
Conclusion
No other known person or entity can lawfully claim an interest in the monies sought by Plaintiff.
For all the foregoing reasons, this Court should issue a prejudgment writ of attachment.
Plaintiff respectfully requests that it immediately be granted a prejudgment writ of garnishment, and be given prejudgment permission to execute against any assets maintained by Defendant, including, but not limited to, any bank accounts, construction equipment, vehicles, or other assets, up to the value of no less than $398,547.00.
SIGNED and DATED this 19th day of July 2022.
Heideman & Associates
/s/ Norman W. Peat, Jr.
Norman W. Peat, Jr.
Attorney for Plaintiff
"Zion Holding is a fraud." - Stephen A., BBB review
“Since the mortgage meltdown, the @FDICgov has opted to settle cases while helping banks avoid bad press, rather than trumpeting punitive actions as a deterrent to others.”
FDIC as Receiver:
The Quietly Settled @DeutscheBank Cases https://t.co/bjtrJUztyG pic.twitter.com/Al4RfbXV7E— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) August 18, 2023
History of Zions Bancorporation
“Zion’s Savings Bank and Trust Company opened for business on Thursday last. This institution is a cooperative one, and we think it is likely to meet with favor. The interest allowed is at a rate of ten cent per annum, compounded semi-annually. It will be found of considerable advantage to those who wish to save money for the emigration of their families, as the interest is large; and sums as low as $1.00 will be received, which, if continually added to, will soon reach a considerable amount, and the depositors will hardly miss the money.”
Brigham Young, president of The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints and founder of Zion’s Savings Bank
and Trust Company, in a letter to his friend Albert Carrington in
England, October 3, 1873
The history of Zions Bancorporation stretches back to the early days of settlement in Utah. At the time of the bank’s formation, the first settlers had been in the Salt Lake Valley only 26 years and Utah was still 23 years away from statehood. Zion’s Savings Bank and Trust Company was incorporated in 1873 with a capital stock of $200,000. On its first day of business, the state’s first chartered savings bank and trust company recorded $5,876 in deposits.
The bank prospered and grew during the next 20 years.
In the panic of 1893, Zion’s faced an economic challenge created in part by the bitter battle over silver coinage.
The resulting downturn was felt especially hard in the West. It was during this time that the bank met and passed its first real test. The bank managed not only to remain solvent, but to continue to grow.
As the twentieth century began, Zion’s was making significant contributions to the business community in Utah. In fact, Zion’s helped finance such firms as Bingham Copper Company (later Kennecott Copper); Salt Lake and Los Angeles Railroad Company (now Union Pacific); Big Cottonwood Power Company (now Rocky Mountain Power, a division of Pacificorp); and Salt Lake Gas Company (later Mountain Fuel and today Questar Gas).
The depression of 1907 was the lone interruption in the steady growth of Zion’s Savings Bank.
Even with this interruption, deposits grew from just over $2 million to a healthy $9 million between 1901 and 1918. By the time the bank celebrated its 50th year in business in 1923, its resources had grown to $12 million.
At the time of the stock market crash in October 1929, the bank was in a very sound financial position. Unfortunately, the subsequent depression had severe consequences for the entire country. Fortunes had been swept away, factories lay idle, farms were undergoing foreclosures, and long lines of men waited for jobs.
There were also a growing number of involuntary bank closings, which made depositors nervous about the safety of their funds, even at a solid bank like Zion’s.
On the morning of February 15, 1932, customers began a run on the bank, waiting in lines that ran out of the building and into the street. Tellers were instructed to honor all withdrawal requests. In two and a half days a total of $1.5 million was withdrawn. Near the end of the second day, bank president Heber J. Grant placed a sign in the bank’s window that read, in part:
“[The bank] is in a very strong, clean, liquid
condition. It can pay off every depositor in full.
Fear of its failure is not only without foundation,
but positively foolish. There is no safer bank
in the State or the Nation.”
Lines of customers that had been as long as a city block began to dwindle, and within five or six days several customers returned to deposit their money. By month’s end, total deposits were more than withdrawals, and Zion’s had survived the most severe crisis in American banking history.
On December 31, 1957, Zion’s Savings Bank and Trust Company, Utah Savings and Trust Company (1889) and First National Bank of Salt Lake City (1890) merged to form Zions First National Bank. The newly enlarged institution had a total of $109.5 million in deposits. At this time, the apostrophe in the bank’s name was dropped.
On April 22, 1960, majority control of Zions First National Bank was sold to a group of businessmen headed by Leland B. Flint, Roy W. Simmons and Judson S. Sayre. At the time of the sale, Zions had total deposits of just under $120 million. These individuals subsequently exchanged their bank shares for shares of Zions Utah Bancorporation, which had previously been known as Keystone Insurance and Investment Company.
The company’s name was changed to Zions Bancorporation in 1987.
In 1965, the company moved into the newly constructed Kennecott Building at One South Main Street, The first public offering of stock in Zions Bancorporation was made in January 1966. There continued to be some minority shareholders of Zions First National Bank until April 1972, when the company exchanged the remaining bank minority shares for common shares in the holding company.
During the 1960s and 1970s, Zions grew into a major statewide banking system by acquiring a number of community banks around Utah and opening de novo offices.
When banking laws were liberalized in the 1980s, Zions Bancorporation’s holdings expanded into other states in the West.
The first acquisition took place in 1985 with the purchase of Nevada State Bank. The following year the company entered Arizona with the acquisition of Mesa Bank. Expansion continued into Colorado and New Mexico with an acquisition in 1996, followed by Idaho and California in 1997, Washington in 1998, and Oregon and Texas in 2005.
In 2015, Zions Bancorporation’s eight bank subsidiaries were merged to form ZB, N.A., which continues to operate under local brands. In 2018, Zions Bancorporation merged into its bank subsidiary, ZB, N.A., which was then named Zions Bancorporation, N.A. This removed the holding company structure.
Today, Zions Bancorporation operates more than 450 full-service banking offices in 11 Western and Southwestern states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, with assets exceeding $65 billion and more than 10,000 employees.
It is one of the 50 largest banking companies in the United States and a member of the S&P 500 Index.
From its humble beginning in the late 1800s to its present position as one of the premier financial institutions in the country, Zions has maintained its pioneering spirit and unique way of doing business.
Texas Justice System: Disqualification Quandary Exposes Declared Court Bias. Disqualified or Not?
Judges Allegiances Trump Recusal Laws, Critics Say.
A series of recent orders signed by Judge Susan Brown challenged. https://t.co/ZYRKcAuy4K#appellatetwitter @SupremeCourt_TX— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) August 22, 2023
Becker v. Commerce Recovery and Capital Management LLC
(4:15-cv-00392)
District Court, E.D. Arkansas
JUN 30, 2015 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: AUG 24, 2023
Y’all at Zions can’t deny you must have known about the shady characters you’d retained to collect debts.
DEEP POCKETS
PHH engaged Korde and Associates for legal services to assist and provide legal advice re compliance with foreclosure related laws in Rhode Island. PHH also engaged Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP for legal services in connection with complaints lodged by the Plaintiff. pic.twitter.com/eJnkg3y1wA
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) August 18, 2023
Mountain Run Solutions v. Capital Link Management
(2:22-cv-00526)
District Court, D. Utah
AUG 18, 2022 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: AUG 25, 2023
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Capital Link Management, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant the Motion.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Mountain Run Solutions, LLC is a debt collection business and a Utah limited liability company. Defendant Capital Link Management, LLC is a third-party debt collection agency and a New York limited liability company with its principal place of business in New York, though it is registered to do business in Utah. In 2015, Defendant’s agents entered into a Collection Agreement (the “Agreement”) with Plaintiff “to recover non-performing receivables on behalf of Plaintiff.”1 Pursuant to the Agreement, Plaintiff agreed it would assign delinquent accounts to Defendant, who agreed to undertake the collection on Plaintiff’s behalf.2
1 Docket No. 2-1 at 8.
2 Docket No. 2-2 at 18.
The Agreement required Defendant to pay Plaintiff all funds collected on the assigned accounts on a monthly basis, minus a collection fee.
Plaintiff assigned delinquent accounts to Defendant from 2016 through the end of 2020.
In June 2021, Plaintiff became concerned about Defendant remitting payments from successful collections and requested assurance of performance.
Plaintiff alleges that it learned that Defendant only remitted $90,000 out of $488,547 allegedly due to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff filed suit against Capital Link on July 18, 2022, in the Fourth Judicial District Court of Utah alleging breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel.
Defendant filed a Notice of Removal on August 18, 2022, based on diversity jurisdiction.
On August 26, 2022, Defendant filed the Motion to Dismiss alleging the Court lacks personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2).
Plaintiff argues that the Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant, but the parties are not diverse.3
It asks the Court to grant the Motion, but to remand the case back to state court instead of dismissing the case.4
II. ANALYSIS
A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Plaintiff asks the Court to remand the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). The burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction is on the party asserting jurisdiction.5 Plaintiff alleges that this case is not a diversity action because Defendant is registered to do business in Utah. Diversity jurisdiction in a suit involving
3 Docket No. 13 at 2.
4 Id.
5 Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F.2d 906, 909 (10th Cir. 1974) (citation omitted).
a limited liability company depends on the citizenship of its members.6
And a corporation is considered to be a citizen of every state in which it is incorporated and where it has its principal place of business.7
Plaintiff’s manager is Zions Debt Holdings LLC, its members are Chris Carter and Brian Fuller and both are residents and domiciled in Utah.
Defendant’s sole member is CLM Enterprise Group, Inc. which is both incorporated and has its principal place of business in New York.
Plaintiff does not contest this and provides no basis to show that registering to do business in Utah makes Defendant a citizen of the State.
As such, the Court finds the parties are diverse and will not remand the case to state court.
B. Personal Jurisdiction
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant.8
Where, as here, there has not been an evidentiary hearing,9 the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction.10
In evaluating the plaintiff’s showing, “[t]he allegations in the complaint must be taken as true to the extent they are uncontroverted by the defendant’s affidavits.
If the parties present conflicting affidavits, all factual disputes must be resolved in the plaintiff’s favor, and the plaintiff’s prima facie showing is sufficient notwithstanding the contrary presentation by the moving party.”11
6 Siloam Springs Hotel, L.L.C. v. Century Sur. Co., 781 F.3d 1233, 1237 (10th Cir. 2015).
7 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).
8 Shrader v. Biddinger, 633 F.3d 1235, 1239 (10th Cir. 2011) (citing Dudnikov v.
Chalk & Vermillion Fine Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d 1063, 1069–70 (10th Cir. 2008)).
9 Neither party has moved for an evidentiary hearing, so the Court may decide the motion on the pleadings (with attachments) and affidavits. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(i).
10 Shrader, 633 F.3d at 1239; see Wenz v. Memery Crystal, 55 F.3d 1503, 1505 (10th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted).
11 Wenz, 55 F.3d at 1505 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
If the defendant challenges the jurisdictional allegations, the plaintiff must support those allegations by competent proof of the supporting facts.12
The Court must first look to whether Utah law authorizes such jurisdiction and then to whether that exercise of jurisdiction comports with the due process clause.13
Utah’s long-arm statute authorizes personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the fullest extent permitted by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.14
Thus, the personal jurisdiction analysis collapses into a single inquiry: whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with due process.15
To comport with due process, a defendant must have “minimum contacts” with the forum state, “such that having to defend a lawsuit there would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”16
Minimum contacts may give rise to general or specific personal jurisdiction.
“General jurisdiction, as its name implies, extends to any and all claims brought against a defendant.”17
“A state court may exercise general jurisdiction only when a defendant is ‘essentially at home’ in the State.”18
Corporations are regarded “at home” in the state in which they are incorporated and in which their principal place of business is located.19
12 Pytlik v. Pro. Res., Ltd., 887 F.2d 1371, 1376 (10th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted).
13 Rusakiewicz v. Lowe, 556 F.3d 1095, 1100 (10th Cir. 2009).
14 Utah Code Ann. §78B-3-201(3).
15 See Rusakiewicz, 556 F.3d at 1100 (stating that “our jurisdictional inquiry in Utah diversity cases is reduced to a single question: did the defendants have sufficient ‘minimum contacts’ with the state of Utah to establish personal jurisdiction over them”).
16 Dudnikov, 514 F.3d at 1070 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
17 Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017, 1024 (2021) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
18 Id.
19 Id.
Plaintiff argues that the Court has general jurisdiction over Defendant because the company has been registered to do business in Utah since “at least 2018.”20
In Oversen v. Kelle’s Transp. Serv., Inc., the plaintiff argued that Ford Motor Company was subject to general jurisdiction in Utah because it registered to transact business in the State as is required by Utah law and it held itself out as doing business there, including through agents, advertisements, and solicitations for business.21
The court rejected this argument and found that Ford was not subject to general jurisdiction because, even though it had extensive contacts with Utah, the same “could be demonstrated for almost every automobile manufacturer with respect to every state in the nation.”22
Both parties agree that Defendant is a New York limited liability company with its sole member being a New York corporation, and its principal place of business in New York.
Defendant is not “at home” in Utah merely because it is registered to do business in the State, as this would essentially create an “all-purpose jurisdiction [that] would scarcely permit out-of-state defendants ‘to structure their primary conduct with some minimum assurance as to where that conduct will and will not render them liable to suit.’”23
Therefore, the Court cannot exercise general jurisdiction over the Defendant.
Specific jurisdiction applies when “in exchange for ‘benefitting’ from some purposive conduct directed at the forum state, a party is deemed to consent to the exercise of jurisdiction
20 Docket No. 13 at 5.
21 Oversen v. Kelle’s Transp. Serv., Inc., No. 2:15-cv-00535-JNP, 2016 WL 8711343, at *2 (D. Utah May 12, 2016).
22 Id; see Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 139 (2014) (holding that doing significant sales within a state does not justify all-purpose jurisdiction).
23 Daimler, 571 U.S. at 139 (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462,
472 (1985)).
for claims related to those contacts.”24
To determine specific jurisdiction courts conduct a two- step inquiry:
“(a) whether the plaintiff has shown that the defendant has minimum contacts with the forum state; and, if so, (b) whether the defendant has presented a ‘compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable.’”25
To establish minimum contacts (1) the defendant must have “purposefully directed its activities at residents of the forum state,” and (2) “the plaintiff’s injuries must arise out of defendant’s forum-related activities.”26 Purposeful direction occurs “where the defendant deliberately has engaged in significant activities within a State,” such that it “has availed [itself] of the privilege of conducting business there,”27 and it is “not unreasonable to require [defendant] to submit to the burdens of litigation in that forum.”28
While a defendant’s relationship with a plaintiff standing alone is not sufficient basis for jurisdiction, “prior negotiations and contemplated future consequences, along with the terms of the contract and the parties’ actual course of dealing” are relevant.29
Where a defendant has “reach[ed] out beyond” its state into another, the Supreme Court has upheld jurisdiction where a
24 Dudnikov, 514 F.3d at 1078.
25 Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Cont’l Motors, Inc., 877 F.3d 895, 904 (10th Cir. 2017) (quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. at 476–77).
26 Shrader, 633 F.3d at 1239 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); Ford Motor Co., 141 S. Ct. at 1024–25.
27 Old Republic, 877 F.3d at 905 (citations omitted).
28 Id. (citation omitted).
29 Burger King¸471 U.S. at 479.
contractual relationship “envisioned continuing and wide-reaching contacts” with forum state residents.30
Here, Defendant entered into a single contract with Plaintiff, a Utah company.
There is no evidence that the contract or parties contemplated further contacts in the State, nor sufficient evidence that the debt collection actions were directed to or occurred solely in Utah.
Additionally, there is no evidence before the Court that Defendant has or had any business dealings with the State beyond the single contract. Further, as per the Agreement, even if the collection actions occurred in Utah, Plaintiff assigned the actions to Defendant, as such Defendant did not purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities in Utah.31
Therefore, the Court finds that exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendant does not comport with due process and will therefore grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
III. CONCLUSION
It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 6) is GRANTED. DATED November 29, 2022.
BY THE COURT:
US DISTRICT JUDGE TED STEWART
30 Id. at 479–80; see Old Republic, 877 F.3d at 905; Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 291 (2014) (holding that “the mere fact that [defendant’s] conduct affected plaintiffs with connections to the forum State does not suffice to authorize jurisdiction.”).
31 See Far West Cap., Inc. v. Towne, 46 F.3d 1071, 1075 (10th Cir. 1995) (“Unilateral activity of those claiming a relationship with a nonresident defendant is not sufficient and it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposely [Sic] avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum States, thus invoking the benefits and protections of the laws.”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
Zions Bancorporation Retains Known Rogue Debt Collecting Lawyer to Pursue Expedited Foreclosure
Zions Bancorporation is retaining lawyers and law firms who do not have an active debt collecting surety bond on file with the State of TX.
Lehman Brothers Robosigned Note Resurfaces: LIT’s Yellowfin Fraud Series Digs Deeper
From the Absurd to the Astonishing: Expired Debt Collection, Open Docket Violation, and the Actions of a Rogue Collector for a Fl Debt Buyer.
Zions Bancorporation Retains Known Rogue Debt Collecting Foreclosure Mill in Expedited Foreclosure
TX Supreme Court has never held corps liable for each other’s obligations merely because of centralized control, finances n mutual purposes.
