Legal Opinion
Tat Ba v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided October 30, 1984No. 83 Civ. 9421 (EW)PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
EDWARD WEINFELD, District Judge.
Defendants, The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. (“Chase”) and Citibank, N.A. (“Citibank”), move pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that it is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
The allegations of the complaint are deemed admitted for the purposes of this motion. 1 Plaintiff, a citizen of the “former Republic of Vietnam” who now resides in the State of Washington, seeks to recover funds that he deposited in several accounts at the Saigon branches of Chase and Citi bank in February and March 1975. Most of the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Jenkins v. McKeithenSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- United States v. First National City BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Sokoloff v. National City BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Tillman v. Guaranty Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1930
- Delahunty v. Central National BankAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1899
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Lien Huynh v. Chase Manhattan BankCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
- Longo v. KeyBank National AssociationDistrict Court, S.D. Illinois · 2019
- Martin v. KijakaziDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2024
- Rickey Montgomery v. City of Chicago; Officer Arnulfo Luna #18047, Officer Juan Vargas #18171, Officer Joshua Taylor #17973 and Unknown Officers, individually and in their official capacities as Chicago Police OfficersDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2026