United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Deborah A. Trudel, et al., Appellants
SunTrust Bank, also known as SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al., Appellees
January 23, 2019
from the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia (No. 1:15-cv-01966)
A. Lambert argued the cause and filed the briefs for
Bradford S. Bernstein argued the cause and filed the brief
Before: Rogers, Millett, and Katsas, Circuit Judges.
KATSAS, CIRCUIT JUDGE
diversity action, we consider accounting and
fraudulent-concealment claims arising from the loss of funds
deposited into a Florida bank account more than two decades
Scherban, a Ukrainian national, opened a savings account at a
Boca Raton branch of defendant SunTrust Bank in the
mid-1990s. Scherban deposited over a million dollars into the
account and designated his wife and son as its beneficiaries.
The money disappeared under mysterious circumstances,
sometime between the deaths of Scherban and his wife in
November 1996 and SunTrust's closure of the account in
Deborah Trudel, who represents the decedents' estates,
and Ruslan Scherban, Yevgenyi's son, accuse SunTrust of
stealing the money or allowing others to do so. SunTrust
maintains that the deposits were likely withdrawn by
Yevgenyi's former assistant, through no fault of the
bank. SunTrust discarded the account records in 2010, which
the bank says was consistent with its record-retention
filed suit against SunTrust in November 2015. Their second
amended complaint asserted twelve claims. The district court
dismissed ten of them for untimeliness or failure to state a
claim, but it allowed claims for an accounting and for
fraudulent concealment to proceed to discovery. Trudel v.
SunTrust Bank, 223 F.Supp.3d 71 (D.D.C. 2016)
(Trudel I). Later, the court granted SunTrust's
motion for summary judgment, Trudel v. SunTrust
Bank, 288 F.Supp.3d 239, 246- 53 (D.D.C. 2018)
(Trudel II), and it denied a series of motions for
additional discovery, reconsideration, and leave to amend,
id. at 253-56; Trudel v. SunTrust Bank, 325
F.R.D. 23 (D.D.C. 2018) (Trudel III).
judgment is appropriate if there is no "genuine dispute
as to any material fact." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A dispute
is material if its resolution "might affect the outcome
of the suit" and genuine if "a reasonable jury
could return a verdict for the nonmoving party."
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
(1986). We review a summary judgment de novo, and,
like the district court, we draw all reasonable inferences in
favor of the nonmoving party. Feld v. Fireman's ...