California NRI Sues HANMI BANK for Deceptive Business Practices
COMPLAINT FOR DEMAGE, DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF in millions
Los Angeles, California, Dec. 20, 2013
NRIpress.com/ Ramesh/Gary Singh
Pramukh Patel and DHRMA BIAKTI, INC. dba MORENO VALLEY ARCO is at present a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of California principally doing business in Southern California, CA, has sued HANMI BANK, of California under the 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, Violation of Federal- Civil Rights law at Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, 111 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012.
Pramukh Patel is suing the Hanmi Bank for participating in illegal servicing practices that caused him to suffer financial hardship and has been unable to refinance his personal home nor been able to co-sign on student loans for his college age children and patel has been unable to, and continues to be unable to procure loans or credit for himself, or to procure loans or credit in future terms that are economically feasible.
The Hanmi Bank a California Corporation ("Hanmi"), is known as Korean-American community bank, founded in 1982, and as of 2008, it owned and operated approximately twenty-two branches.
Defendant Hanmi violated plaintiff's rights as:
Under the 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, Violation of Federal- Civil Rights law, all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
Pramukh Patel is a very successful businessman in the Southern California area. Patel is the owner either individually or by his closely held corporations of multiple gas stations and liquor stores in the Southern California area
Plaintiff DBI is a corporation principally owned by Patel and his brother-in-Iaw Mahesh Patel which owns and operates an ARCO gas station ( "ARCO" ) in Moreno Va11ey, CA. For the past 11 years. Patel and DBI have also borrowed over eight (8) million dol1ars in Ioans from Hanmi to purchase two (2) gas stations and a liquor store, according to page item # 9-10
Over approximately the last 11 years that Patel and DBI and his other closely held corporations have banked with Hanmi, Patel has held an overall average balance of I.2 million dollars in his bank account with Hanmi and DBI and his other closely held corporations have held an overall average balance of $700,00 dollars in the bank accounts with Hanmi.
Hanmi promised Patel and DBI to facilitate the loan application regarding the ARCO loan expeditiously and promised plaintiffs that the ARCO loan would be completed within 2-3 months from the application date which was on February 16, 2011, and that plaintiffs could secure the loan at a 4.75% annual interest rate amortized over 25 years as mentioned paragraph-14.
Because of the delay by Hanmi in completing the ARCO loan, plaintiffs were required to place into the escrow with the seller of the ARCO an additional $500,000 deposit in order to extend the escrow.
Further, because of the delay by Hanmi in completing the ARCO loan, plaintiffs were given the ARCO loan by Hanmi for 4.87 million dollars at a 5.25% annual interest rate amortized over 25 years.
Patel and DBI's and Patel's other closely held corporations that are referred to in paragraphs 7-30 above, were personally brought to Hanmi as customers from the
inception by Prakash Ajwanj- ("Ajwanj- " ) , a long standing Senior Vice President at Hanmi Since the time that Ajwani has been employed with Hanmi for over approximately 10 years, Ajwani as a Senior Vice President and loan and marketing officer of Hanmi has brought to Hanmi a substantial book of referral business in the tens of millions of dollars for loans and to open bank accounts with Hanmi, such referrals being as Patel, DBI and Patel's other closely held corporations that are referred to in paragraphs 7-30 above of Asian-Indian nationality.
Despite DBI at all relevant times paying without being late at any time on the ARCO loan since the ARCO loan was issued on or about December 26, 2013, Hanmi reported the ARCO loan on Patel's personal name and not DBI to Equifax, Transunion, and Experian, consumer reporting agencies operating nationally and in California.
In September of 2013, Hanmi unreasonably and in violation of federal regulations placed a 2 day hold on a deposit of Patel of a check of $4,200 and without. proper notice in violation of Federal Regulations CFR, Title 72, Section 229.I0 ("Regulation CC") despite Patel having the funds and credit history to cover the check.
When Patel protested to Hanmi that in approximately 11 years of his banking relationship with Hanmi, Patel had never encountered such treatment as stated in paragraph 39 above, and that. Ajwanl- had always approved his deposit.s without bank holds by Hanmi and did so in this case, in response Angie Koh ("Koh"), Assistant Operations Officer of Hanmi, made inappropriate statements to Patel that Ajwani had no such authority to do so even though Ajwani had regularly and with Hanmi's authority given to him approved Patel and other customers of his of Asian-Indian nationality that he referred to Hanmi approwed check deposits without bank holds over the last 10 years of employment until such time.
Subsequently, after both Patel and Ajwani formally complained to Hanmi's chief executive officers and the Federal Reserve Board ("FRB"), Hanmi, through it former Legal counsel, Lisa Kim, misrepresented both to Patel and Ajwani that Hanmi released the bank hold on Patel's deposit immediately and that it is Hanmi's policy and practice to call customers about the hold instead of giving written notice…..Paragraph 40
Hanmi's misrepresentation as stated in paragraph 40 above was patently false as the 2 day hold on Patel's deposit expired automatically after the 2 day period passed and Hanmi separately misrepresented to the FRB that Hanmi had in fact sent a written hold notice to Patel which was false…..Paragraph 41
Now Hanmi bank will need to respond to the suit within the 30 days provided in the summons on Dec. 09. In most instances, Bank will need to raise their defenses in that response or they will be waived.
