COURT OF COMMON PLEAS HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

O
'I

4 0

0 2

UP

MURRAY LAW, LLC 1839 Madison Road Cincinna& i, Ohio 45206

CASE NO.
(Judge

JOHN G. TKNKMAN 7292 Country Club Lane

West Chester, Ohio 45069

ear

ULLI &1& UIUUUI I HAMILION OOUNTY

t=&t

ED

Fgtl

Pu 7014

KATHR'&'N L. KREKGER 3638 Brentwood Avenue Cincinnati, Ohio 45208

TRACY W&NKLER COMMON PLEAS COURTS

PAUL HM4ANN P.O. Box 52 Rogers, K entucky 4165

NANCY JIAMANN P.O. Box 52 Rogers, Kentucky 4165

Plaintiffs

COMPLAINT FOR MONETARY DAMAGES WITH JURY DEMAND ENDORSED HEREON

vs.

FIFTH T BIRD BANK 38 Fountain square Plaza

Cincinnati, Ohio 45263

Also Serve Statutorv Anent: James R. Hubbard 38 Fountain Square Plaza M13 tiIOAT76 Cincinnati, Ohio 45263

PNC BANK NATIONAL ASSOCI/I TION c/o CSC-I,awyers Incorporating Service 50 West E road Street, Suite 1800
Columbus, Ohio 43215

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

425 Walnut Street
Cincinnati

Ohio 45202
Defendants

INTRODUCTION

I.
the accounts

This case arises out of the improper payment by Defendants

of checks

drawn on

of Plaintiffs.

These checks were made payable to specific payees, were stamped

"for depo.,it only" but were never deposited in the accounts of the specified payees. Plaintiffs
seek to rec over the amounts improperly paid, as well as other damages.

PARTIES

2.

Plaintiff,

Murray

Law, LLC

("Murray" ),

is an Ohio limited

liability

company

doing business in Hamilton County, Ohio.

3.
4.
5.

Plaintiff, John G. Tenkman ("Tenkman"), is a resident Plaintiff, Kathryn

of Butler

County, Ohio.
County, Ohio.

L. Kreeger ("Kreeger"), is a resident of Hamilton

Plaintiff, Paul Hamann

("Hamann") is a resident of Kentucky who banks with

Defendant, Fifth Third Bank in Hamilton County, Ohio.

6.

Plaintiff, Nancy Hamann ("Hamann") is a resident

of Kentucky

who banks with

Defendant, Fifth Third Bank in Hamilton County, Ohio.

7.

Defendant,

Fifth Third Bank

("Fifth

Third" ), is a national banking association

doing business within Hamilton

County, Ohio.

8.

Defendant, PNC Bank ("PNC"), is a national banking association doing business

in Hamilton County, Ohio.

9.
business
i i

Defendant,

U.S. Bank NA ("U.S. Bank" ), is a national

banking association doing

Hamilton County, Ohio.

.IURISDICTION AND VENUE

10.
11

This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to

R.C. tj 2305.01.
the claims for relief

Venue is proper with this Court pursuant to Civ. R.

3(B) as

arose in H unilton County, Ohio, two Plaintiffs reside in Hamilton County, Ohio, and Defendants
conduct business in Hamilton County, Ohio.

EACTUALBACKGROUND
12.
affiliated

Plaintiffs

were investors

in Queen

City Investments,

QFC LLC, and other

r ntities,

all owned and controlled by Glen Galemmo.

13,

In July

2013, Galemmo notified

Subsequent

his investors,

including

Plaintiffs, that he has

was engaged
in a

ceased doing business.

investigations

revealed that Galemmo

Ponzi schr me to defraud his investors, including Plaintiffs.

14.
activities.

In January

2014, Galemmo pled

guilty to criminal

charges arising from these

15.
Third.

Plaintiff Murray maintained a checking account ending 4556 with Defendant Fifth

16.

On February

8, 2013, Murray issued check 11126 in the amount of $ 50,700 made

payable to Queen City Investments.

1A

This check was endorsed "for deposit only".

account.

Accordingly,

it should have been

deposited in the Queen City Investments

18.

Check

126was

never deposited in this account, but rather was deposited in the

account ol. a third party,

19.
PNC.

Plaintiff Tenkman

maintained

a checking account ending 0935 with Defendant

2f.

On September 5, 2012, Tenkman issued check

6090in

the amount

of $ 150,000

made payable to Queen City Investments.

21.

This check was endorsed "for deposit only".

account.

Accordingly,

it should have been

deposited in the Queen City Investments

22.

Check

6090was

never deposited in this account, but rather was deposited in the

account ol'a third party.

23.
Fifth Third.

Plaintiff Kreeger maintained

a checking account ending

6548 with Defendant

24.

On September

11, 2011, Kreeger issued check

1466in

the amount

of $200,000

made payable to QFC,

LLC.
Accordingly,
it should have been

25.
deposited

This check was endorsed "for deposit only".

in the QFC, LLC account.

In addition,

this check was stamped

"credited to the

account o l'he within named payee absence

of endorsement

guaranteed

2781 U.S. Bank 2781".

26.

Check

1466was

never deposited in this account, but rather was deposited in thc

account o 1' third party.

27.
Fifth Third.

Plaintiff Hamann

maintained

a checking account ending 3644 with Defendant

28.

On April 16,

2013, Hamann issued check II5428

Fund II.

in the amount

of $ 50,000

made

payable to Queen City Investments

29.

This check was endorsed "for deposit only".

Fund II account,

Accordingly,

it should have been

deposited in the Queen City Investments

30.

Check II5428 was never deposited in this account, but rather was deposited in the

account o a third party.

31.

Defendants

improperly

paid

the

above-referenced

checks

and

improperly

deducted ihese sums from Plaintiffs'ccounts.

32.

Had Defendants

notified Plaintiffs

of

the improper

payment

of these checks,

Plaintiffs would not have continued to invest with Queen City Investments,

QFC or any of their

affiliates.

COUNT ONE (OHIO U.C.C. VIOLATIONSI

(As to Defendants Fifth Third and PNC)

33
rewritten
1

Plaintiffs
ierein.

incorporate

the allegations

in the preceding

paragraphs

as

if

fully

34
shown

Plaintiffs'hecks
checks.

were paid into accounts other than the accounts of the payees
were not paid as authorized
by Plaintiffs,
and

on those

Plaintiffs'hecks

consequer tly the checks were not properly payable or properly paid.

35

In accordance with

R.C. $ 1304.30 and other applicable statutes, Defendants Fifth of the checks set
forth

Third and PNC were required to re-credit or otherwise refund the atnounts

above.

36

Plaintiffs have made demands

with the filing

for payment of Defendants

Fifth Third and PNC

prior to or contemporaneously

of this Complaint.

3",'.

To date, neither Fifth Third nor PNC has compensated any Plaintiff.
Plaintiffs were injured when the Defendants

31'.

Fifth Third and PNC refused to re-

credit their accounts otherwise compensate them for the amounts

of the checks set

forth above.
with

39.

Plaintiffs were further injured to the extent they made additional

investments

Queen Cily Investments,

improperi
y

QFC or any of their affiliates subsequent to the date their checks were

paid.

COUNT TWO &OHIO U.C.C VIOLATION)

(As to Defendant U.S. Bank)

4f.
rewritten

Plaintiffs

incorporate

the allegations

in the preceding

paragraphs

as

if

fully

herein.

41.

Defendant

U.S. Bank

maintained

checking accounts for Queen City Investment

and QFC I.LC.

42.

Defendant

U.S. Bank

improperly

paid the checks referenced

herein despite the

fact that they were deposited in accounts other than the payees'ccounts.
issued by Plaintiffs to an unauthorized

By crediting checks
the

account, Defendant

U.S. Bank proximately caused

Plaintiffs'ccounts

to be wrongfully

debited and came into thc possession

of

funds that they

were not iuthorized to possess, even temporarily.

43.

Defendant

U.S. Bank

wrongfully

exercised dominion over Plaintiffs'roperty

in a

manner inconsistent with Plaintiffs'ights.

44.

Defendant

U.S. Bank's actions

proximately

caused loss to Plaintiffs in the amount

of the checks set

forth above.

45.

In addition,

U.S. Bank's actions caused Plaintiffs additional losses

that would not

in an

have been occurred

had

U.S. Bank notified Plaintiffs that the checks were deposited

incorrect account.

COUNT THREE NKGLIKNCE

(As to Defendant U.S. Bank)
4ti.
Plaintiffs

incorporate

the allegations

in the preceding

paragraphs

as

if

fully

rewritten herein.

4i'.

Defendant

U.S. Bank had a duty to conduct its U.S. Bank had a duty to formulate

banking affairs with ordinary care.

and follow a "know your customer"

4I:.

Defendant

policy concerning their customers and their customers'hecking

4c'.

accounts.
precautions
to prevent their
laundering

Defendant

U.S. Bank had a

duty to take reasonable

customeri,'hecking
activities.

accounts

from becoming

conduits

for fraud and/or

money

50.
government

Defendant
authorities

U.S. Bank
suspicious

had a duty to inquire further into and repoit to the federal

banking

activity and/or financial transactions

to which they

were a pai ty. This reporting requirement

includes making Suspicious Activity Reports

("SAR").

51.
misuse

The purpose

of these

duties and regulations

are to prevent the sort

of foreseeable

of bank accounts to convert and

52.
Defendant

launder funds that occurred in this case.

U.S. Bank breached

the aforementioned

duties and otherwise breached

by Queen City

its duty o care. But for

U.S. Bank's breach of its

duties, the fraud perpetrated

Investmer. t, QFC and their owners could not have been accomplished

without detection.

53.
the amoun ts

Defendant

U.S. Bank's negligence

was a proximate

cause

of loss to

Plaintiffs in

of their checks.

5~k

Defendant

U.S Bank's negligence also caused loss to Plaintiffs who invested

an

funds after

U.S. Bank should have notified them of'he attempt to deposit their checks into

incorrect account.

COUNT FOUR FAILURE TO ACT WITH ORDINARY CARE UNDER THK OHIO U.C.C.
(As to All Defendants)

55.

Plaintiffs

incorporate

the allegations

in the preceding

paragraphs

as

if

fully

rewritten, ierein.

56.

Defendants

U.S. Bank, Fifth Third

and PNC had a duty to conduct their banking

affairs and specifically to handle checks and related documents in accordance with the standards

set forth iii the Ohio Uniform Commercial Code.

57

Defendants

U.S. Bank, Fifth Third

and PNC breached their duties under the Ohio

Uniform Commercial Code.

58,

These breaches were a proximate cause

of the loss to Plaintiffs

in the amount

of

the checks referenced herein.

59.

In addition,

Defendants'reaches

proximately

caused the loss of all amounts

invested b r Plaintiffs subsequent

to the date they should have been notified of the irregularities.

COUNT FIVE BREACH OF DUTY TO ACT IN GOOD FAITH UNDER THK OHIO U.C.C.
(As to Defendant U.S. Bank)

60.

Plaintiffs

incorporate

the allegations

in the preceding

paragraphs

as

if

fully

rewritten h ;':rein.

61.
in good faiih.

Defendant

U.S. Bank

had a duty under the Ohio Uniform Commercial Code to act

6.'&.

Defendant U.S. Bank failed to act in good faith when it accepted for deposit the

checks

r&

ferenced above, even though they were not deposited into the correct accounts, which

failure proximately

caused harm to Plaintiffs.

VtHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court award judgment against the Defendants
as follows:

(a)
(b)

The face amount

of all checks referenced

herein improperly paid by Defendants;

All monies invested

by Plaintiffs with Queen City Investment

or QFC LLC or

their affiliates subsequent

to the date of the referenced checks;

damages, attorney's fees, interest; and

(cl
(d)

All consequential

Such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

E. Reynolds (0019 35) Brian P. O'onnor (0086646) Allison S. King (0091036) SANTEN & HUGHES
Cf'harles

600 Vine Street, Suite 2700 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Tel: (513) 721-4450/Fax: (513) 721-0109
cer@santen-hughes.corn bpo@santen-hughes.corn ask@santen-hughes.corn Attorneys for Plaintiffs

JURY DEMAND
Pl iintiffs demand a trial by jury on all matters referenced herein.

Charles

E. Reynolds

PRAECIPE TO TIIE CLKRI& OF COURTS

In accordance with Civ. R. 4.3(B)(1),please serve the Defendant via certified mail, return

receipt requested, at the addresses listed in the caption.

If service of process is
undersigned

returned with an endorsement

of "Refused" or "Unclaimed",

the

WAIVKS notice of the failure of service by the Clerk and requests ordinary mail

service in accordance with Civ. R. 4.6(C) or (D) and Civ. R. 4.6(E)

Charles

E. Reynolds

533060.2

10