Defendant opposes Citibank's motion for summary judgment in a credit card collection lawsuit on the grounds that (a) Citibank did not submit any evidence that a written contract existed, as only its outside counsel and not a competent witness referred to the proffered contract; (b) Citibank did not authenticate any account statements because its fact witness submitted only a conclusory affidavit with no detail and providing no information suggesting she had personal knowledge of Citibank's record systems; (c) Citibank submitted no evidence at all that account statements were mailed to the defendant; (d) Citibank's own documents suggested that, even if protected by the National Bank Act, it charged interest in excess of South Dakota's usury limit, which is 12% where no writing authorizes a higher rate; and (e) and Citibank's publicly disseminated investor materials concerning its credit card securitizations suggest Citibank has engaged in prohibited laundering of usury committed by its state-law trust counterparty in those transactions, which is subject to New York usury laws but has rented Citibank's national bank charter so as to evade the application of those laws.

Citibank's motion for summary judgment was ultimately denied.