Reneg Corp v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 25-cv-20595-BLOOM/Elfenbein
RENEG CORP.,
Plaintiff / Counterclaim-Defendant,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
Defendant / Counterclaim-Plaintiff,
v.
AHARON ATZMI and READYCAP
LENDING, LLC,
Counterclaim-Defendants.
______________________________________/
READYCAP LENDING, LLC,
Crossclaim-Plaintiff/ Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
RENEG CORP.,
Crossclaim-Defendant,
and
HUGLIMAR A. IBANEZ CANELON,
Third-Party Defendant.
/
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO MAINTAIN INTERPLEADED FUNDS IN COURT
REGISTRY AND FOR AN EXPEDITED HEARING OR TEMPORARY
ADMINISTRATIVE STAY
Case 1:25-cv-20595-BB Document 103 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2025 Page 1 of 7

Case No. 25-cv-20595-BLOOM/Elfenbein
2
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Cross claimant Aharon Atzmi (“Atzmi”) Motion
to Maintain Interpleaded Funds in the Court Registry Pending Adjudication of Competing Claims,
ECF No. [101], and Motion for Expedited Hearing, or in the Alternative, For Temporary
Administrative Stay to Maintain Interpleaded Funds in Court Registry Pending Adjudication of
Competing Claims. ECF No. [102]. For the reasons that follow, Atzmi’s Motions are denied.
I. 	FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On December 19, 2024, ReneG initiated this action against J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
(“Chase”) in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County because of a dispute over
Chase’s allegedly unlawful retention of the remaining balance held in ReneG’s bank account after
Chase closed ReneG’s account. See Case No. 2024-024128-CA-01. On February 10, 2025, Chase
filed a Notice of Removal to the Southern District of Florida, ECF No. [1].
Chase then filed a Counterclaim for Interpleader (“Original Counterclaim”), seeking to
deposit the disputed funds into the Court Registry and Interplead Claimants ReadyCap Lending,
LLC (“ReadyCap”), and Atzmi. ECF No. [31]. The Original Counterclaim alleged that ReneG is
a consulting company that opened a Chase Business Complete Checking account ending in x7872
(the “Account”) with Chase on November 30, 2023. Id. at ¶¶ 7-8. When opening the Account, a
representative for ReneG signed a “Business Signature Card which provides that [ReneG]
‘acknowledge[d] receipt of the Bank’s Deposit Account Agreement [(“DAA”)] . . . which
include[s] all provisions that apply to this deposit account . . . and agree[d] to be bound by the
terms and conditions contained therein . . .”’ Id. at ¶ 9. The DAA provides that Chase “may restrict
an account and reverse any transaction to protect [Chase] or its customers for various reasons,
including suspected fraud.” Id. at ¶ 19. In particular, the DAA explicitly “permits [Chase] to restrict
the Account, reverse or freeze any funds in the Account, or remove funds from the Account and
Case 1:25-cv-20595-BB Document 103 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2025 Page 2 of 7

Case No. 25-cv-20595-BLOOM/Elfenbein
3
hold them pending an investigation” where Chase “suspect[s] that a[ ] transaction may involve
illegal activity or may be fraudulent.” Id. at ¶ 20.
Several months after ReneG opened the Account, ReadyCap Lending, LLC (“Ready Cap”)
deposited $495,966.31 into the Account. Id. at ¶ 10. According to ReneG, the funds were deposited
pursuant to a Small Business Administration (“SBA”) loan ReneG had obtained from ReadyCap.
Id. at ¶ 11. More than a year later, Atzmi purportedly wired two deposits totaling $250,000 to the
Account from his Bank of America account. Id. at ¶ 12. Shortly after Atzmi wired the funds, “Bank
of America recalled the $250,000 because Atzmi contended both wires were fraudulent.” Id. at ¶
13. Specifically, Atzmi claimed the two wire transfers “were the result of a scam perpetuated by
[ReneG] whereby Atzmi was contacted by someone he believed to be a federal agent, and was told
that payment in the total amount of $250,000 must be made to avoid incarceration.” Id. at ¶ 14.1
While Atzmi claimed the wires were fraudulent, ReneG “claims the wires from Atzmi were
legitimate, and were the result of a cryptocurrency transaction.” Id. at ¶ 17. However, “[i]n light
of Atzmi[’s] contention that he was defrauded by [Chase’s] account holder [i.e., ReneG], and
pending its investigation of same, [Chase] restricted and closed the Account on September 30,
2024, pursuant to its rights under the DAA.” Id. at ¶ 21. At the time of the account closure, the
Account held “a balance of $309,516.02, which [Chase] [was] holding in suspense in a non-
customer account.” Id. at ¶ 22.2
1 Atzmi also claimed that Plaintiff had “defrauded him into making additional transfers [totaling $63,444]
into a bank account held at Truist Bank. ECF No. [31] at ¶¶ 15-16. At the time of the filing of the
Counterclaim, Atzmi had been unable to recover any of the funds deposited into the Truist Bank account(s).
Id. at ¶ 16.
2 Chase has since deposited those funds into the Court Registry. See ECF No. [92].
Case 1:25-cv-20595-BB Document 103 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2025 Page 3 of 7

Case No. 25-cv-20595-BLOOM/Elfenbein
4
Atzmi filed an Answer to Chase’s Counterclaim for Interpleader as well as a Crossclaim
against ReneG. ECF No. [59].3 Based on the alleged fraudulent scheme outlined above, Atzmi
asserts 	the 	following 	claims 	against 	ReneG: 	(1) 	Fraudulent 	Misrepresentation; 	(2) 	Civil
Conspiracy; (3) Conversion; and (4) Unjust Enrichment. Id. For each of those claims, Atzmi only
seeks money damages. See id. There is no request for equitable relief of any kind.
ReneG subsequently filed a motion to dismiss Chase’s Counterclaim for Interpleader,
which the Court granted on October 10, 2025. ECF No. [82]. While the Court dismissed the
Counterclaim for lack of jurisdiction, the Court permitted Chase to file an Amended Counterclaim
and deposit the disputed funds into the Court Registry by November 7, 2025. Id.
On October 23, 2025, Magistrate Judge Elfenbein held a settlement conference with the
parties at which ReneG reached an agreement with Chase, ReadyCap, and Third-Party Defendant,
Hulimar Ibanez, and stipulated that Chase may deposit the interplead funds into the Court Registry.
See ECF No. [91].4 Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Chase filed the Amended Counterclaim
for Interpleader (“Counterclaim”) with largely the same allegations as asserted in the Original
Counterclaim, and properly deposited the full $309,516.02 from the Account into the Court
Registry. ECF No. [92].
On October 31, 2025, ReneG, ReadyCap, and Ibanez filed a Joint Motion for the Court to
approve their settlement and partially release the interplead funds from the Court Registry. ECF
No. [94]. Specifically, the parties requested the Court release the $246,072.02 not in dispute,
making $119,255.04 payable directly to ReadyCap and $126,816.98 payable to the Law Offices
3 Atzmi also filed a third-party Complaint against Lion Investment Group. See ECF No. [59] at 13.
4 ReneG and Atzmi, however, reached an impasse as to Atzmi’s claims. See ECF No. [91].
Case 1:25-cv-20595-BB Document 103 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2025 Page 4 of 7

Case No. 25-cv-20595-BLOOM/Elfenbein
5
of Moises A Saltiel. Id. On November 6, 2025, the Court granted the parties’ Joint Motion and
directed the Clerk of Court to release the undisputed funds as requested by the parties. ECF No.
[100]. Several days later, Atzmi filed the instant motions seeking to preliminarily enjoin or
administratively stay the distribution of any of the funds in the Court Registry. ECF Nos. [101],
[102].
II. 	DISCUSSION
Atzmi argues that the Court should wait to distribute the funds Chase has placed into the
Court Registry until the Court has adjudicated his claims against ReneG, as such relief would be
the most equitable means of ensuring that Atzmi is still able to recover from ReneG were he to
eventually prevail in this action. See ECF Nos. [101], [102]. However, Atzmi offers no case law
or any other legal basis suggesting that such relief is appropriate under the circumstances.
While Atzmi insists that a failure to preliminarily enjoin the disbursement of funds would
render his claims moot by depriving him of any means of recovery, he readily admits that he does
not have a claim to the specific funds in the Court Registry but rather has brought a claim for
money damages against ReneG generally. See ECF No. [89-1] at 6 (“It is true that Atzmi is not
claiming a right to the particular $300,000 remaining in the Chase account; his claim is for
damages equal to the money he lost to the scheme.”); see Kernon v. Banner Life Ins. Co., No. 3:21-
CV-312-MMH-PDB, 2022 WL 2121513, at *3 (M.D. Fla. May 6, 2022) (“Ordinarily, . . . a
claimant should file an answer in interpleader, setting out his claim to the res in contest.”), report
and recommendation adopted, No. 3:21-CV-312-MMH-PDB, 2022 WL 1683361 (M.D. Fla. May
26, 2022) (quoting Syms v. McRitchie, 187 F.2d 915, 919 (5th Cir. 1951)). Simply because the
funds in the Court registry may be sufficient to satisfy a hypothetical future judgment does not
mean that Atzmi now has a legitimate legal interest, let alone a legal claim, to the specific funds at
Case 1:25-cv-20595-BB Document 103 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2025 Page 5 of 7

Case No. 25-cv-20595-BLOOM/Elfenbein
6
issue in the instant interpleader action. See Intabill, Inc. v. Elie, No. 8:09-CV-834-T-23TGW, 2009
WL 10670490, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 6, 2009) (“[A] plaintiff may not obtain a temporary
restraining order solely to ensure the availability of a fund from which to satisfy a money
judgment.”). Given that Atzmi is only seeking money damages, see ECF No. [59],5 and has failed
to allege or proffer evidence that ReneG has no other assets or funds sufficient to satisfy any future
money judgment, there is no basis to enjoin or otherwise stay the partial distribution of the funds
in the Court’s registry. See Pharma Funding, LLC v. FLTX Holdings, LLC, No. 20-21103-CIV,
2021 WL 1166051, at *10 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 8, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, No. 20-
21103-CIV, 2021 WL 1165420 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 26, 2021) (“[c]ases in which the remedy sought is
the recovery of money (whether as collection on a debt or as damages) do not fall within the
jurisdiction of equity[.]”).
Moreover, even if Atzmi did properly claim an interest to the funds in the Court registry,
Atzmi has alleged he has only been unable to recover $63,444.6 Critically, even after the Court
ordered distribution of certain funds from the Court Registry to ReadyCap and the Law Offices of
Moises A. Saltiel, $63,444 will remain in the Registry. Therefore, the Court’s Order has not
undermined Atzmi’s ability to recover for his alleged injuries.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
5 Even in Atzmi’s claims for conversion and unjust enrichment against ReneG, he only seeks money
damages, not equitable relief.
6 While Atzmi argues that he “has recently amended his claim in this action to assert a count for civil theft
(under Fla. Stat. § 772.11), which provides for treble damages and attorneys’ fees,” and as a result, his
“claimed damages now exceed $190,000 (inclusive of treble damages and fees), ECF No. [101], the Court
need not consider the additional claimed damages because Atzmi did not seek leave of court, and his
amended cross claim was untimely. See ECF No. [8]; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); Bank of Am., N.A. v.
Harris, No. 1:17-CV-1201-CAP-JSA, 2017 WL 8186605, at *1 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 13, 2017), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 1:17-CV-1201-CAP, 2017 WL 8186600 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 31, 2017).
Case 1:25-cv-20595-BB Document 103 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2025 Page 6 of 7

Case No. 25-cv-20595-BLOOM/Elfenbein
7
1. 	Atzmi’s Motion to Maintain Interpleaded Funds in the Court Registry Pending
Adjudication of Competing Claims, ECF No. [101], is DENIED.
2. 	Atzmi’s Motion for Expedited Hearing, or in the Alternative, For Temporary
Administrative Stay to Maintain Interpleaded Funds in Court Registry Pending
Adjudication of Competing Claims, ECF No. [102], is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on November 11, 2025.
______________________________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: counsel of record
Case 1:25-cv-20595-BB Document 103 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2025 Page 7 of 7