Leonard J. LaPadula, III v. Citizens Financial Group, Inc.

• Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island
• Decided: April 15, 2026
• Docket: 2025-0054-Appeal.
• Status: Published

Opinion

Supreme Court

No. 2025-54-Appeal. (KC 24-154)

Leonard J. LaPadula III :

v. :

Citizens Financial Group, Inc. :

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Opinion Analyst, Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence, Rhode Island 02903, at Telephone (401) 222-3258 or Email: opinionanalyst@courts.ri.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. Supreme Court

Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ. OPINION Justice Long, for the Court. Leonard J. LaPadula III (Mr. LaPadula or

plaintiff) appeals from the denial of his motion to appear before the Superior Court

by WebEx for purposes of a hearing on Citizens Financial Group, Inc.’s (Citizens or

defendant) motion to dismiss his complaint. 1 On appeal, Mr. LaPadula challenges

the authority of the Superior Court to order him to appear in person and asserts that

the Superior Court’s rules and civil motion protocols violate his constitutional rights

and are generally inequitable.

This case came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order directing the

parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be

1 The defendant represents that its proper corporate name is “Citizens Bank, N.A.” -1- summarily decided. This Court granted plaintiff’s request for the matter to be

decided on the parties’ written submissions. After considering the parties’ written

submissions and reviewing the record, we conclude that cause has not been shown

and that we may decide this case without further briefing. We conclude that Mr.

LaPadula’s appeal is procedurally improper because he has not appealed from an

appealable judgment, order, or decree of the Superior Court. Accordingly, we deny

and dismiss his appeal.

Facts and Procedural History We draw the following facts from Mr. LaPadula’s amended complaint. Mr.

LaPadula has been living overseas since 2011 while running his business. He has

been an account holder at Citizens for almost 30 years. Mr. LaPadula alleged in his

February 2024 amended complaint that his Citizens debit card was shut off a total

of three times, with the last shut off occurring after he withdrew about two hundred

dollars four separate times from an automated teller machine in Mauritius; he

asserted that the withdrawals allowed him to pay his rent. He alleged that Citizens’

difficult-to-manage customer service process and the fact that Citizens deactivated

his debit card following his withdrawals caused him “a great deal of mental anguish”

and damages. He further alleged that defendant was obligated to restore his access

to his debit card and to protect against fraud without putting customers like him at

risk. Based on these allegations, Mr. LaPadula sought damages and injunctive relief.

-2- Citizens filed a motion to dismiss Mr. LaPadula’s complaint. In response to

defendant’s motion to dismiss, Mr. LaPadula filed a motion to attend by WebEx

seeking leave to allow him to appear remotely at the hearing on defendant’s motion

to dismiss. On June 14, 2024, an entry appeared on the Superior Court docket noting

that Mr. LaPadula’s motion to appear remotely was not scheduled because the papers

did not request a hearing date. The next entry on the docket is Mr. LaPadula’s notice

of appeal which identified that he was appealing from the June 14, 2024 docket

entry. The trial justice later granted defendant’s motion to dismiss.

On appeal, Mr. LaPadula poses eleven “questions of law” that he requests we

answer. Citizens, for its part, argues that Mr. LaPadula failed to challenge the

substance of the trial court’s post-appeal dismissal of Mr. LaPadula’s complaint, that

his request to appear by WebEx was untimely,2 and that the Superior Court’s civil

motion protocols require all self-represented litigants to appear in person. Mr.

LaPadula has disclaimed any intention to challenge the substance of defendant’s

motion to dismiss on appeal, or the trial justice’s subsequent order granting that

motion, and we therefore need not address those arguments advanced by Citizens in

its motion.

2 We acknowledge Mr. LaPadula’s “Notice Regarding Timeliness of Superior Court Motion to Attend Hearing by WebEx” filed in response to Citizens’ Article I, Rule 12A counterstatement. There, Mr. LaPadula correctly argues that his motion to attend by WebEx was, in fact, timely. The timeliness of that motion does not affect our decision on the outcome of his appeal, however. -3- Discussion

We deny and dismiss Mr. LaPadula’s appeal as procedurally improper. While

we acknowledge Mr. LaPadula’s written submissions to this Court that argue that

the Superior Court lacked authority to require him to appear in person, he did not

take an appeal from a “judgment, order, or decree” of the Superior Court. Article I,

Rule 4(a) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rather, his notice of

appeal noted that the “Date of Judgment or Order Appealed From” was “June 14,

2024,” and our review of the docket reveals that the only event recorded on that date

was an entry reading “Motion Not Scheduled[,] No Hearing Date on Motion.” That

docket entry, however, does not satisfy our final judgment rule. See McAuslan v.

McAuslan, 34 R.I. 462, 469, 83 A. 837, 840 (1912) (defining final judgment). Nor

is it subject to any recognized exception to that rule. See G.L. 1956 § 9-24-7

(granting right to appeal from grant of injunction, appointment of receiver, sale of

real or personal property, or the order or denial of a new trial after a trial by a jury);

Halloran v. State Department of Children, Youth, and Families, 729 A.2d 709, 711

(R.I. 1999) (describing exception to final judgment rule where order, though

interlocutory, “still possesses such an element of finality that it warrants appellate

review”). Accordingly, we deny and dismiss plaintiff’s appeal of the docket entry

denying his motion to attend by WebEx because the docket entry is not an appealable

-4- final judgment, nor is it subject to any of our recognized exceptions to the final

judgment rule.

Notwithstanding our dismissal of Mr. LaPadula’s appeal, however, we

observe that a trial justice has discretion, under the Superior Court Rules of Civil

Procedure, to grant a party’s request to appear remotely. See Super. R. Civ. P.

7(b)(4). Indeed, Mr. LaPadula was permitted to do so once in this matter, at which

time he was informed that no further remote appearances would be permitted.

Despite the particular facts of the instant case, we nevertheless trust that the justices

of the Superior Court grant such motions when appropriate and where properly

presented by any party.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated herein, we deny and dismiss Mr. LaPadula’s appeal.

The papers may be remanded to the Superior Court.

Justice Goldberg participated in the decision but retired prior to its

publication.

-5- STATE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE Licht Judicial Complex 250 Benefit Street Providence, RI 02903

OPINION COVER SHEET

Leonard J. LaPadula III v. Citizens Financial Group, Title of Case Inc. No. 2025-54-Appeal. Case Number (KC 24-154)

Date Opinion Filed April 15, 2026

Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Justices Long, JJ.

Written By Associate Justice Melissa A. Long

Source of Appeal Kent County Superior Court

Judicial Officer from Lower Court Associate Justice Kevin F. McHugh

For Plaintiff:

Leonard J. LaPadula III, pro se Attorney(s) on Appeal For Defendant:

Geoffrey W. Millsom, Esq. Colten H. Erickson, Esq.

SU-CMS-02A (revised November 2022)