Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV00635, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23AHCV00635 Hearing Date: August 24, 2023 Dept: 3
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST
DISTRICT
|
Plaintiff(s), vs. Defendant(s). |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
[TENTATIVE]
ORDER RE: Dept.
3 August
24, 2023 |
|
|
|
|
I.
INTRODUCTION
On March 22, 2023, plaintiff Gilbert De
La Cruz (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. asserting a cause of action for general negligence. Plaintiff alleges that on March 21, 2022, his
insurance carrier, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State
Farm”) issued and overnighted a comprehensive coverage payment for $30,743.31
for the total loss of a 1996 Porsche. Plaintiff
never received the check and requested assistance from State Farm. On August 15, 2022, Plaintiff received an
email from a State Farm agent with a copy of the cashed check which showed it
was made payable to non-party Alliance Electronic Recycling (“Alliance”) instead
of Plaintiff.
Defendant demurs to the sole cause of
action for negligence on the grounds that it is displaced by the Commercial
Code and otherwise fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of
action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(e).
II.
LEGAL
STANDARD
A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency
of the pleadings and will be sustained only where the pleading is defective on
its face. (City of Atascadero v.
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 445,
459.) Allegations are to be liberally
construed. (Code Civ. Proc., §
452.) A demurrer may be brought if
insufficient facts are stated to support the cause of action asserted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)
III.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff
fails to state a claim against Defendant because Plaintiff fails to establish
that Defendant owed him a duty of care. To
state a claim for negligence, Plaintiffs must show: (1) the existence of a duty
to exercise due care; (2) breach of that duty; (3) causation; and (4) damage. (Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001) 26
Cal.4th 465, 500.) “A bank owes no duty to nondepositors to investigate or
disclose suspicious activities on the part of an account holder.” (See Kurtz-Ahlers, LLC v. Bank of America,
N.A. (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 952, 960.) “[T]he contractual nature of the
bank-depositor relationship limits a bank’s duties in regards to [customer]
accounts... ‘this contractual relationship...entails no contractual obligation
to persons other than the account holder.”
(Ibid.) Accordingly, there
is no duty to non-depositors to “police” account activity for fraud. (Ibid., [citing Chazen v.
Centennial Bank (1998) 61 Cal. App. 4th 532.)
Here,
Plaintiff alleges that he has no existing accounts with Defendant. Accordingly, Defendant does not owe him a
duty of care.
Plaintiff
did not oppose the demurrer and show how amendment is possible. Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer is sustained
without leave to amend.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Defendant’s unopposed demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to
amend.
Dated
this
|
|
|
|
|
William A.
Crowfoot Judge of the Superior Court |
Parties who intend to submit on this
tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating
intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided
on the court website at www.lacourt.org.
Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to
appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the
hearing and argue the matter. Unless you
receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume
that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the
parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no
appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the
tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.