Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 21SMCV00782, Date: 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21SMCV00782    Hearing Date: December 7, 2022    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling
Framing Specialists, Inc. v. Pacificore Construction, Inc., Case No. 21SMCV00782
Hearing Date December 7, 2022
Bank of America’s Demurrers to Complaint and Amended Cross-Complaint (UNOPPOSED)

Plaintiff alleges defendant Pacificore performed improvements on defendant 1449 Wellesley’s property and failed to pay subcontractor plaintiff Framing Specialists for its work. Pacificore and Framing Specialists settled their dispute for $100,000. Framing Specialists alleges the Crisp defendants hacked into Pacificore’s email and fraudulently redirected Pacificore’s settlement payment into a Crisp Bank of America (BofA) account. Framing Specialists sued BofA for approving the allegedly fraudulent wire transfer, and Pacificore cross-claimed on the same grounds. BofA demurs. The court did not receive an opposition from either Pacificore or Framing Specialists, and BofA filed a notice of non-opposition on 11/28/2022.

BofA argues all the common law claims are preempted by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The California Supreme court held all common law claims alleging a bank improperly accepted and executed a funds transfer are preempted by Article 4A of the UCC. Zengen, Inc. v. Comercia Bank (2007) 41 Cal.4th 239, 253-254, Cal. U. Com. Code §1104(a). All targeted claims against BofA are common law causes of action and are based on an alleged wrongful funds transfer. Under Zengen, they are preempted by the UCC. There is no opposition, so no basis to find any exception to this rule. SUSTAINED without leave to amend.