Christopher White v. George Keely, 814 F.3d 883

White, sole shareholder/president of Reffco II, LLP, maintained NBI accounts and one Chase Bank account for HPT; Premier payroll funded from NBI.
On Jan 30, 2008, a $500,000 HPT check from Chase was deposited to Reffco and credited by NBI, while ADP initiated ACH drafts and a reverse wire from Premier payroll with insufficient funds
NBI transferred $425,000 from Reffco to Premier payroll to cover ADP payments, then paid ADP $420,373.82 from Premier; the HPT check later bounced, creating a large overdraft in Premier’s payroll account
NBI later sued White in state court for check deception/fraud; White failed to respond and the state court granted summary judgment in NBI’s favor
White was criminally convicted in Indiana for fraud on a financial institution, check fraud, and theft; the convictions were affirmed on appeal
White filed a 2014 federal complaint under 12 U.S.C. § 503 and 18 U.S.C. § 1005 alleging false NBI reports and seeking damages for harm caused by those reports

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether White adequately pleads detrimental reliance.	White argues Brown Leasing wrongly required detrimental reliance to recover under §503/1005.	Defendants contend detrimental reliance is required and White fails to plead it.	White fails to plead detrimental reliance; dismissal affirmed.
Whether White adequately pleads proximate causation.	White asserts false reports caused his damages and prosecution.	Defendants argue no plausible link between false reports and harm; transfers occurred earlier/lacked causation.	Proximate causation not established; dismissal affirmed.
Whether White’s civil claim seeks to collaterally attack his criminal conviction.	White claims the reports harmed him but not as collateral attack on conviction.	Defendants rely on Heck v. Humphrey to bar claims that would invalidate criminal judgment.	Claim barred by Heck; cannot challenge conviction via §503/1005 suit.
Whether White could rely on an employment-damages theory not pleaded in the complaint.	White suggested lost employment opportunities as harm.	Waived; not pleaded and first raised at oral argument.	Waived; not considered for pleading sufficiency.
Whether the appeal is frivolous and sanctions are warranted under Rule 38.	White contends merits exist.	Appeal is frivolous; seeks to relitigate settled facts without plausible theory.	Appeal frivolous; sanctions awarded against White.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must show plausible claim, not mere legal conclusions)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (claims must be plausible, not merely conceivable)
Brown Leasing Co. v. Cosmopolitan Bancorp, Inc., 42 F.3d 1112 (7th Cir. 1994) (damages under §503/1005 require detrimental reliance)
McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 694 F.3d 873 (7th Cir. 2012) (proximate cause must be pled with specificity)
Hill v. Murphy, 785 F.3d 242 (7th Cir. 2015) (collateral-attack concerns invoked by Heck v. Humphrey)
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1994) (civil suits cannot invalidate criminal judgments)