Nat'l Credit Union Admin. Bd. v. Stan Jurcevic
17-3162
| 6th Cir. | Aug 11, 2017Background
- Stan and Bara Jurcevic opened a joint account at St. Paul Croatian Federal Credit Union; Stan received over $1.5 million in share‑secured personal loans from 1996–2010 and owed about $1.7 million by 2010.
- Federal auditors revealed bribery and loan‑scheme misconduct by St. Paul officers, prompting the National Credit Union Administration Board (the Board) to place St. Paul in conservatorship and later liquidate it.
- The Board, acting as liquidating agent, sued the Jurcevics and their company Stack Container Service for fraud, conspiracy, conversion, loan defaults, and unjust enrichment; the district court entered a broad asset freeze (except living expenses).
- The district court dismissed the Board’s fraud, conspiracy, and conversion claims as time‑barred under 12 U.S.C. § 1787(b)(14) and dismissed unjust enrichment claims as insufficiently pleaded against Bara and Stack; the Board appealed and the parties sought immediate review under Rule 54(b).
- This Court affirmed the asset freeze, reversed the dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim as to Bara and Stack, and remanded the statute‑of‑limitations (accrual) issue for further consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of asset freeze under 12 U.S.C. § 1787(b)(2)(G) and Rule 65 | Board: freeze is authorized; balancing factors favor preserving assets for recovery | Jurcevic: injunction was abuse of discretion and should require showing of fraud or irreparable harm | Court: affirmed; Board showed likelihood of success on loan/default and unjust enrichment claims, risk of harm, and public interest; statute does not require fraud or irreparable‑harm showing |
| Whether tort claims are time‑barred under § 1787(b)(14) (start date: appointment vs. accrual) | Board: claims timely if accrual (discovery rule) falls within 4‑yr Ohio statute; accrual date requires factual inquiry | Jurcevic: claims barred because Board filed after appointment‑based cutoff and failure to plead accrual earlier | Court: vacated dismissal and remanded — district court erred by placing burden on Board to plead accrual; defendant bears burden to prove claims untimely; district court should determine accrual (discovery) in first instance |
| Jurisdiction to appeal dismissed claims under Rule 54(b) | Board: immediate appeal appropriate to avoid piecemeal delay and to resolve distinct claims | Jurcevic: cross‑appeal premature previously | Court: affirmed certification under Rule 54(b); appeals of partial dismissals were proper |
| Sufficiency of unjust enrichment allegations against Bara and Stack | Board: pleaded benefit, knowledge, unjust retention, and causation against Bara and Stack | Jurcevic/Stack: claims legally insufficient | Court: reversed dismissal as to Bara and Stack — complaint plausibly alleged all unjust enrichment elements at pleading stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Luis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1083 (2016) (due process limits on pretrial asset restraints discussed)
- Hunter v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 635 F.3d 219 (6th Cir. 2011) (abuse‑of‑discretion review framework)
- Flight Options, LLC v. Int’l Bd. of Teamsters, Local 1108, 863 F.3d 529 (6th Cir. 2017) (preliminary injunction factors and discretion)
- Leary v. Daeschner, 228 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 2000) (injunction factor balancing principles)
- Cataldo v. U.S. Steel Corp., 676 F.3d 542 (6th Cir. 2012) (party asserting statute‑of‑limitations defense bears burden of showing claim is time‑barred)
- Andersons, Inc. v. Consol, Inc., 348 F.3d 496 (6th Cir. 2003) (elements of unjust enrichment under Ohio law)
- Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. 127 (1979) (bankruptcy discharge exceptions for fraud)