Medical Supply Chain, Inc. v. US Bancorp N.A.
United States District Court for the District of Kansas
2003 WL 21479192 (2003)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Medical Supply Chain, Inc. (Medical) (plaintiff) developed a certification program for healthcare supplies. U.S. Bancorp N.A. (bank) (defendant) was a bank holding company. Medical sued the bank, claiming, among other things, that the bank violated the USA PATRIOT Act (Patriot Act). Specifically, Medical alleged that the bank (1) failed to train its employees regarding the Patriot Act, (2) failed to provide a compliance officer relating to the Patriot Act, (3) misused its authority and used excessive force as enforcement officers under the Patriot Act, and (4) violated criminal laws to influence public policy under the Patriot Act. Medical’s complaint did not allege that the bank engaged in joint action with any state officials. The bank moved to dismiss Medical’s Patriot Act claims for failing to state a claim. The court also considered whether Medical had standing to pursue its Patriot Act claims and whether Medical had the right to pursue a private suit to enforce the Patriot Act. With respect to its right to pursue a private suit, Medical invoked 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allowed individuals who were deprived of their legal rights under color of state law to pursue private litigation to vindicate their rights. In opposing the bank’s motion to dismiss, Medical first asserted, in conclusory fashion, that the bank acted as an agent of the federal government.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Murguia, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.