Zachman v. Wells Fargo N.A.
Filing
43
ORDER: (1) Granting Defendants' 23 Motion to Dismiss; (2) Denying 26 Motion to Amend; and (3) Denying Plaintiff's 38 Motion for Approval of Supplemental Pleadings. Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint on or before December 28, 2016. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 12/5/2016. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(knb)
1
FILED
2
iOEC -7 PM 1* 5$
3
4
MU Blf*HT Y
■ ?m
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
JAMES A. ZACHMAN,
Case No.: 3:15-cv-02909-BEN-JMA
Plaintiff,
12
13
v.
14
ORDER:
WELLS FARGO N.A.,
15
(1) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS;
Defendant.
(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO AMEND;
16
17
(3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF
SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS
18
19
20
[DOCKET NOS. 23,26, 38]
21
22
Pending before the Court are: 1) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First
23
Amended Complaint (Docket No. 23), 2) Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Complaint
24
(Docket No. 26); and 3) Plaintiffs Motion for Approval of Supplemental Pleading
25
(Docket No. 38). Each motion has been fully briefed. The Court finds the Motions
26
suitable for determination on the papers without oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local
27
Rule 7.1.d.l. For the reasons set for below, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED with
28
leave to amend, and Plaintiffs’ motions are DENIED as moot.
l
V1 S-p.v-n?Qnq-RF.N-TMA
BACKGROUND1
1
2
Plaintiff James A. Zachman, proceeding pro se, filed his initial Complaint against
3
Defendant Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) on December 28, 2015. (Docket No.
4
1.) The Complaint alleged California state law claims for negligence, breach of contract,
5
and “aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty.” (Id.)
6
Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on May 16,2016. (Docket
7 No. 20.) The operative facts of the FAC are similar to the initial Complaint. Plaintiff re
8
alleges his previous California state law claims for negligence and “aiding and abetting a
9
breach of fiduciary duty.” (Id. ) The FAC alleges three new state law claims for violation
10
of California’s Unfair Competition Act, aiding and abetting fraud, and aiding and
11
abetting conversion, and one federal claim for violation of the Racketeer Influenced
12
Corrupt Organizations Act. (Id.) Plaintiffs claims arise out of an alleged unlawful
13
creation of a Wells Fargo limited liability company bank account and subsequent
14
unlawful transfers of funds to a third-party account by a third-party individual. (Id. )
15
16
Real Time Data Services LLC ("Data Services") is organized under the laws of
Delaware. (Compl. f 15.) Since March 27, 2008, Data Services is comprised, in relevant
17 part, of two members, two Co-Presidents, and one manager. (Compl. Ex. A.) Plaintiff is
18
Co-President, member and sole manager of Data Services. (Id.) CBS Accounting
19
Services, in New Delhi, Inda, is the remaining member, and is represented by Ms.
20
Sangeeta Chhabra. (Id.) Ms. Chhabra is also Co-President. (Id.) Plaintiff and CBS
21
Accounting each own a fifty percent interest in Data Services. (Id.)
22
As the sole manager, Plaintiff was in charge of all of Data Services' U.S. banking
23
and financial activities. (Compl.
17.) In January 2009, Plaintiff created a bank account
24
for Data Services at Wells Fargo (the "9809 account"). (Compl. 118.) In May 2012, a
25
26
27
28
i Unless otherwise noted, the Court is not making any factual findings, but rather summarizing the
relevant allegations of Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint for purposes of evaluating Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss.
2
V1 S-rv-09QnQ-RF>J-TMA
1
dispute arose between Plaintiff and Ms. Chhabra, resulting in Ms. Chhabra "locking] the
2 Plaintiff out of the operations of Data Services by commandeering the computer servers."
3
(Compl. f 19.) Plaintiff then shut Ms. Chhabra out of the 9809 account until the dispute
4 could be resolved. (Compl. f 14.) On June 18, 2012, Ms. Chhabra created a Wells Fargo
5
account (the "9039 account") for a company called "My Real Data Services LLC" at the
6 Fairfax branch in Lewes, Delaware. (Compl. $ 22.) Ms. Chhabra created the account
7 using Indian passports, a Delaware registering agent’s address, and Data Services'
8 Employer Identification Number, Delaware business file number, and Entity Member
9
10
document. (Compl.
22-23.)
According to Plaintiff, Wells Fargo contacted the State of Delaware to verify the
11
file number and found no record of the company My Real Data Services, yet created the
12
account anyway. (Compl.
13
the company name on the 9039 account changed from "My Real Data Services LLC" to
14
"Real Time Data Services LLC". (Compl.
15
Chhabra used the Wells Fargo 9039 account to transfer over $350,000 to an account in
16 India. (Compl.
25-26.) Then, sometime between June 18 and July 1, 2012,
27.) Over the next few months, Ms.
32-34.) The 9039 account allowed Ms. Chhabra to “carry out her
17
scheme to unlawfully cut [Plaintiff] out the LLC’s management and ownership [sic].”
18
(Compl. 34.) Ms. Chhabra’s plans included taking control of Data Services’ finances by
19 “moving the LLC’s bank account to her own Data Services Wells Fargo account.” (Id.)
20
Wells Fargo has an obligation to comply with the obligations set forth in the
21
Banking Secrecy Act (“BSA”) and the Patriot Act. (Compl. 37.) Plaintiff alleges Wells
22 Fargo knew Ms. Chhabra provided a false business name, “chose to ignore the false
23
24
25
information,” and provided Ms. Chhabra with banking services. (Compl.
43, 48.)
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint on December 28, 2015. (Docket No. 1.) On
26 February 9, 2016, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for lack of
27 jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
28
12(b)(1) and (b)(6). (Docket No. 8.) On April 20, 2016, after taking the matter on
3
3-1 S-r.v-O^qnq-RFN-TMA
I
1
submission, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the
2
allegations in Plaintiffs Complaint failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction or
3
standing to bring the claims for relief. Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended
4
complaint by May 23, 2016. (Docket No. 19.) Plaintiff filed his First Amended
5
Complaint (“FAC”) on May 16, 2016. (Docket No. 20.)
6
On June 6, 2016, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the FAC. (Docket No. 23.)
!
7
On July 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend Complaint. (Docket No. 26.) On
8
July 21, 2016, the Court took Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the FAC under submission.
9
(Docket No. 31.) On September 2, 2016, the Court took Plaintiffs Motion to Amend
10
under submission. (Docket No. 33.) On October 6, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for
11
Approval of Supplemental Pleading, which the Court also took under submission.
12
(Docket Nos. 38, 41.)
13
LEGAL STANDARD
14
A challenge to the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of
15
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) may be either facial or factual in nature. Wolfe v. Strankman,
16
392 F.3d 358, 362 (9th Cir. 2004). A facial 12(b)(1) motion involves a limited inquiry
17
into the allegations of the complaint. Id. In doing so, courts must assume all material
18
allegations in the complaint to be true and determine whether a lack of federal
19 jurisdiction appears from the complaint itself. Thornhill Publ 'g Co. v. Gen. Tel. Elec.,
20
21
22
2 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979).
DISCUSSION
Wells Fargo moves to dismiss the FAC for failure to cure the deficiencies in the
23
Complaint regarding the lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and standing under Rule
24
12(b)(1). Wells Fargo further argues that Plaintiffs federal claim and five state law
25
claims should be dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The
26
Court need not perform the Rule 12(b)(1) analysis of Defendant’s subject-matter
27 jurisdiction challenge or Rule 12(b)(6) analysis of Plaintiff s claims because Plaintiff
28
failed to establish standing in the FAC.
4
3 • 1 S-rv-fPQflQ-RF.N-TM A
4^-
1
As discussed in the Court’s April 20, 2016 Order (Docket No. 19), a plaintiff
2 bringing an action in the federal court has the burden to show that Article III standing
3
exists. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992); Snake River Farmers ’
4 Ass ’n, Inc. v. Dep’t of Lab., 9 F.3d 792, 795 (9th Cir. 1993). Specifically, the plaintiff
5
must show (1) an injury in fact; (2) traceable to the challenged action of the defendant;
6
and (3) likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560.
7
In California, a limited liability company is governed by the “law of the state or
8
other jurisdiction under which [it] is formed.” Cal. Corp. Code § 17708.01. Data
9
Services was organized under Delaware law. Accordingly, the Court looks to Delaware
10
11
law to determine whether Plaintiff has any individual right to Data Services’ assets.
Delaware courts have held that case law governing corporate derivative suits is
12
applicable to derivative suits brought on behalf of an LLC. See Kelly v. Blum, No. 4516-
13
VCP, 2010 WL 629850, at *9 (Del. Ch. Feb. 24, 2010); VGS, Inc. v. Castiel, No. 17995,
14
2003 WL 723285, at *11 (Del. Ch. Feb. 28, 2003); Gotham Partners, L.P. v. Hailwood
15
Realty Partners, L.P., No. 15754, 1998 WL 832631, at *5 (Del. Ch. Nov. 10, 1998). In
16
determining whether a claim is derivative or direct, “[a] court should look to the nature of
17 the wrong and to whom the relief should go.” Tooley v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette,
18
845 A.2d 1031,1039 (Del. 2004). A direct lawsuit is proper where the plaintiff is
19
directly injured by the defendant’s conduct. See VGS, Inc., 2003 WL 723285, at *11. In
20
other words, a suit to recover damages to an LLC must be brought in that LLC’s name.
21
28 U.S.C. § 1654 sets forth the general rule “establishing the right of an individual
22 to represent oneself m all federal courts of the United States.” Simon v. Hartford Life,
23
Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008) (emphasis added). “Section 1654 is intended to
24 provide individuals with equal access to the courts by permitting individuals to represent
25
themselves.” Id. (emphasis added). Additionally, “it is well established that the privilege
26 to represent oneselfpro se provided by § 1654 is personal to the litigant and does not
27
extend to other parties or entities.” Id., citing McShane v. United States, 366 F.2d 286,
28
288 (9th Cir. 1966) (citation omitted) (emphasis added).
5
^ • 1 ^-r.v-0?Q0Q-RF.N-TM A
Here, Plaintiffs FAC suffers from the same pleading deficiencies regarding
1
2
standing as in his initial Complaint. Plaintiff brought this action in his individual
3
capacity, claiming that money, of which he had a fifty percent interest as a member of
4 Data Services, was unlawfully or fraudulently transferred out of a Data Services’ bank
5
account (which was serviced by Wells Fargo), to another bank account in India, which he
6
cannot access. (Compl. ffl[32-34, 45.) Taking the relevant allegations of Plaintiff s FAC
7
as true, Plaintiff has not established that he has suffered harm in his individual capacity.
8
As alleged, Plaintiffs FAC suggests that Data Services, a non-individual entity, was
9
directly harmed. As such, Plaintiff has not shown he has suffered an injury in fact in his
10
individual capacity and therefore lacks standing.
The Court therefore GRANTS Defendant’s motion for lack of standing.
11
CONCLUSION
12
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. The Complaint is
13
14 DISMISSED with leave to amend. As a result, Plaintiffs Motion to Amend and
15
Motion for Approval or Supplemental Pleadings are DENIED as moot. Plaintiff may
16
file a Second Amended Complaint on or before December 28.2016. If Plaintiff does not
17
file an amended complaint, the Clerk shall close this case without further order of the
18
Court.
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
21
22
DATED: December^/, 2016
H(^J©GERT. BENITEZ
United States District Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
VI 5-r.v-n?QnQ-RF.N-TMA
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?