Lawsuit against Salt Lake City Police Dept., Salt Lake City police ...

Mar 07, 2007 09:03:28

Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging, among other claims, Title VII violations against all defendants. Defendant Kevin Sprague failed to timely Answer. Accordingly, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Entry of Default and the Clerk entered default against Sprague.The Court stated: “For good cause shown the court may set aside an entry of default.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). . . . The relevant factors for vacating an entry of default include determining whether “(1) the moving party’s culpable conduct did not cause the default; (2) the moving party has a meritorious defense; and (3) the non-moving party will not be prejudiced by setting aside the entry of default.”Defendant Sprague countered with a Motion to Dismiss due to Untimely Service. Service was not made until 22 months after the Complaint was filed. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires service within 120 after filing of the complaint unless the plaintiff can show “good cause” for extending such deadline.Plaintiff claims that she had good cause for failure to timely serve, since she simply “could not find him.” Defendant claims that plaintiff’s efforts “to find him” were less than stellar, and in any case, far too late.“Because there are genuine issues of material fact regarding causation [of the fire], the United States’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is denied.” The issue of causation will be determined by the jury.As stated in the opinion, “a Suspicious Activity Report is a document the Secretary of the Treasury requires certain money-handling businesses to file if the business detects a known or suspected violation of federal law, a suspected transaction related to money laundering activity, or a violation of the Bank Secrecy Act.”Financial instituions that create SARs are: (1) “prohibited from notifying any person involved in the transaction that the transaction has been reported;” and (2) required to “decline to produce the SAR or to provide any information that would disclose that a SAR has been prepared or filed. . . .” (even in the face of a subpoena).Further, “[N]o officer or employee of the Federal Government or of any State, local, tribal, or territorial government within the United States, who has any knowledge that such report was made may disclose to any person involved in the transaction that the transaction has been reported, other than as necessary to fulfill the official duties of such officer or employee.” 31 U.S.C. § 5318.The government also cited several policies favoring non-disclosure, including: (1) disclosure of the contents of a SAR may inadvertently disclose methods by which institutions and law enforcement learn of suspicious and otherwise illegal activity and therefore might allow other wrongdoers to avoid these methods of detection; (2) financial institutions file SARs with the expectation that they will be kept confidential; a