Judicial Order Sends Signal in Arkansas ATM Case

by George Waldon  on Monday, Sep. 16, 2013 12:00 am  

Dave Dickson, president of Union Bank & Trust of Monticello. (Photo by Jason Burt)

The lone ATM stalker case in Arkansas that didn’t reach a settlement is set for trial Dec. 9 in U.S. District Court at Pine Bluff. But it won’t be surprising if a trial doesn’t happen.

Union Bank & Trust of Monticello received a favorable ruling in the July 13, 2012, lawsuit filed by serial EFTA plaintiff, New Yorker Don Anderson.

U.S. District Judge Brian Miller denied Anderson’s motion for class certification in his Electronic Fund Transfer Act case.

Miller’s July 11 order noted that Anderson “suffered no damages” and that he didn’t meet the typicality and adequacy requirements needed for class certification.

“Anderson, unlike the members of his proposed class, is an intentional lawsuit and class-action seeker,” the order stated.

“Since 2009, he has filed nearly 50 cases in federal district courts from Nevada to Florida making nearly identical claims against banks that have failed to post fee notices outside of their ATMs.

“Upon reviewing the dockets in those cases, more than 40 were settled. It is clear that Anderson does not have the typical claim of members of the proposed class and will not adequately represent their interests.”

Anderson’s local counsel, Dan Turner of the Arkadelphia firm of Arnold Batson Turner & Turner, couldn’t be reached for comment.

The same goes for Michael Todd Harrison of Stevenson Ranch, Calif., who has overseen Anderson’s ATM litigation across the nation.

The order signed by Miller also points out the frivolity of Anderson’s complaint:

“This is a silly case filed by a lawsuit seeker who knew exactly what he was doing when he transacted business with Union’s ATM and did so in an attempt to get a payday.

“Therefore, Anderson cannot serve as a class representative and his proposed class will not be certified.”

 

 

Please read our comments policy before commenting.