Lensendro v. Key Bank N.A., 3:24-cv-01108

Plaintiff Laguerre Lensendro, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against Key Bank N.A. alleging breach of contract.
Plaintiff claimed he applied for a $125,000 personal loan (advance) from Key Bank and provided a “Bill of Exchange” as collateral.
Key Bank allegedly did not respond to the application or process the loan request.
Plaintiff asserted that Key Bank’s failure to respond or disburse funds constituted a breach of contract.
Plaintiff moved to proceed in forma pauperis, demonstrating financial inability to pay fees.
The court reviewed both plaintiff’s motion and the sufficiency of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Existence of a contract	Lensendro claims that by applying for the advance and providing a Bill of Exchange, a contract existed.	Not stated; no response.	The court held no contract existed as there was no agreement.
Breach of contract	Lensendro alleges Key Bank’s silence and retention of documents amounts to breach.	Not stated.	No breach as there was no contract or mutual assent.
Adequacy of pleadings	Lensendro’s complaint states he was ignored after his application.	Not stated.	The complaint fails to state a plausible claim for relief.
Leave to amend	Not directly addressed by plaintiff.	Not stated.	Court grants leave to amend, finds amendment not futile yet.

Chem-Tek, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 816 F. Supp. 123 (D. Conn. 1993) (recites Connecticut elements for breach of contract)
Joseph General Contracting, Inc. v. Couto, 317 Conn. 565 (Conn. App. 2010) (explains requirement for definite, mutual contract terms)