Evans et al v. ZB, N.A.
Filing
28
MEMORANDUM and ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 12/19/2017 GRANTING 21 Motion to Dismiss. CASE CLOSED. (Hunt, G)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
RONALD C. EVANS, an
individual; JOAN M. EVANS, an
individual; DENNIS TREADAWAY,
an individual; and all others
similarly situated,
14
15
16
17
Plaintiffs,
CIV. NO. 2:17-1123 WBS DD
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTION
TO DISMISS
v.
ZB, N.A., a national banking
association, dba California
Bank & Trust,
18
Defendant.
19
20
Ronald C. Evans, Joan M. Evans, and Dennis Treadaway
21
(collectively “plaintiffs”) initiated this action on behalf of
22
over fifty people against defendant ZB, N.A., a national banking
23
association, doing business as California Bank & Trust (“CB&T”),
24
for allegedly knowingly providing substantial assistance to a
25
fraudulent scheme initiated by International Manufacturing Group,
26
Inc. (“IMG”).
27
customers of defendant, they seek to recover from CB&T
28
nonetheless.
Although plaintiffs are not, and never were,
Presently before the court is defendant’s Motion to
1
1
Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6)
2
(“Rule 12(b)(6)”).
3
Plaintiffs assert eight claims against CB&T for
4
allegedly aiding and abetting the torts of IMG:1 (1) Aiding and
5
Abetting Fraud; (2) Securities Fraud; (3) Conspiracy to Commit
6
Fraud; (4) Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (5)
7
Intentional Interference with Contract; (6) Negligence; (7) Penal
8
Code § 496 Violation; and (8) Conspiracy to Violate Penal Code §
9
496.2
10
Plaintiffs allege that CB&T, as IMG’s depository
11
institution, owed plaintiffs a duty to protect them from IMG’s
12
intentional torts.
13
argument, which plaintiffs rely on for all of their claims, is
14
that plaintiffs were neither CB&T customers nor had any
15
relationship with CB&T, and a bank does not owe a duty of care to
16
noncustomers unless extraordinary and specific facts are present.
17
See Software Design & Application v. Hoefer & Arnett, 49 Cal.
18
App. 4th 472, 479 (1st Dist. 1996).
19
alleged no such facts, CB&T was under no legal duty to warn
20
plaintiffs about IMG’s financial condition, nor did defendant owe
21
a “duty to [plaintiffs] to investigate or disclose suspicious
22
activities on the part of an account holder.”
23
Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 127 Cal. App. 4th 1138, 1149 (4th Dist. 2005).
24
25
26
27
28
The primary flaw with regard to this
Because plaintiffs have
See Casey v. U.S.
1
Plaintiffs have not sued IMG because the company filed
for bankruptcy on May 30, 2014. (Compl. ¶ 9.) Plaintiffs have
also not sued Deepal Wannakuwatte, IMG’s Chief Executive officer,
who pled guilty to federal fraud charges and was sentenced to
twenty years in prison for this crime. (Compl. ¶ 4.)
2
Plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their Aiding and
Abetting Conversion claim. (Docket No. 25.)
2
1
In fact, federal law explicitly prohibits financial institutions
2
from directly or indirectly disclosing nonpublic personal
3
information to nonaffiliated third parties.
4
et seq.; 15 U.S.C. §§ 6801-6809(a).
5
See 12 U.S.C. § 3401
Consistent with this, CB&T had “no duty to prevent
6
commingling of assets in fiduciary accounts, to monitor fiduciary
7
accounts for irregular transactions, to prevent improper
8
disbursements from the accounts, or to conduct an investigation
9
of possible misappropriation of funds.”
See Chazen v. Centennial
10
Bank, 61 Cal. App. 4th 532, 541 (1st Dist. 1998).
11
does not have a duty to investigate or police its accounts,
12
CB&T’s “alleged knowledge of [a depositor’s] suspicious account
13
activities--even money laundering--without more, does not give
14
rise to tort liability for the banks.”
15
4th at 1141.
16
Because a bank
See Casey, 127 Cal. App.
The only relevant question therefore becomes whether
17
CB&T had actual knowledge that IMG was operating a Ponzi scheme
18
and misappropriating funds.
19
not pled sufficient facts to give rise to a plausible inference
20
that defendant knew IMG was misappropriating funds.
21
simply allege that CB&T “knew that [IMG was] engaged in wrongful
22
or illegal conduct . . . in breach of their fiduciary duties.”
23
Id. at 1152; see also Compl. ¶ 154 (alleging defendant had actual
24
knowledge IMG was not using its investors’ money for the
25
designated purpose, thereby breaching its fiduciary duties.)
26
support their claim that CB&T was aware of IMG’s Ponzi scheme,
27
plaintiffs point to an October 2009 letter in which CB&T informed
28
IMG that it intended to “disengage from the Lending relationship”
Id. at 1149.
3
Here, plaintiffs have
Plaintiffs
To
1
because “there has been little to no revolving of the outstanding
2
balances.” (Compl. ¶ 117).
3
that CB&T was aware that IMG could not meet its financial
4
obligations, it does not sufficiently allege that the bank knew
5
that IMG was engaging in fraud and misappropriating money.
6
Accordingly, plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to plead more than
7
“alleged knowledge,” and instead “essentially alleges the [bank]
8
knew something fishy was going on with the accounts opened by”
9
IMG, see Casey, 127 Cal. App. 4th at 1149, which is insufficient
10
to plead a cause of action for any of the eight claims plaintiffs
11
assert against CB&T.
12
However, even if this demonstrates
Moreover, even assuming that CB&T had actual knowledge
13
of the fraud IMG was committing against plaintiffs, the court
14
rejects plaintiffs’ argument that CB&T was therefore obligated to
15
terminate its depository relationship with IMG.3
16
lender is entitled to pursue its own economic interests in a loan
17
transaction.”
18
App. 3d 1089, 1093, n.1 (3rd Dist. 1991).
19
bank may terminate a deposit account, it is not liable for
20
failing to do so, even if it has notice of adverse claims or
21
improper disbursements from a trust account.
22
App. 4th. at 541.
23
plaintiffs to terminate its banking relationship with IMG or to
24
otherwise warn and protect plaintiffs from IMG’s fraud,
“A commercial
Nymark v. Heart Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 231 Cal.
Therefore, while a
Chazen, 61 Cal.
Accordingly, because CB&T had no duty to
25
26
27
28
3
Notably, plaintiffs cite no authority for their
contention that CB&T had a duty to terminate its banking
relationship with IMG. In fact, plaintiffs concede that there
are no known cases supporting this point. (Pls.’ Opp’n at 20:8
(Docket No. 25).)
4
1
plaintiffs’ claim against CB&T must be dismissed.
2
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s Motion to
3
Dismiss (Docket No. 21) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
4
Dated:
December 19, 2017
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?