Etop Udo v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Background

Etop Udo alleged that on July 13, 2022, he left a briefcase unattended in a parking garage. The briefcase contained debit and credit cards issued by the defendants and Udo’s passport. After the briefcase disappeared, Udo alleged that many of his accounts experienced unexplained and unauthorized activity, including deposits using bad checks that were later charged back to his accounts. He reported the activity to the defendant banks and to the San Francisco Police Department.

The court considered motions to dismiss filed by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; Bank of America, N.A.; BMO Harris Bank, N.A.; and U.S. Bank, N.A. A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court generally accepts the complaint’s factual allegations as true but requires enough facts to make a claim plausible, rather than relying on labels or conclusions.

Claims and Analysis

Negligence

The court dismissed Udo’s negligence claim under California’s economic-loss rule, which generally prevents recovery in tort for purely financial losses. The court found that Udo had not alleged facts showing a special relationship between him and the defendants or another exception to that rule. The court also found that he had not alleged a duty independent of the parties’ contractual relationship that could support a negligence claim.

Breach of Contract

The court dismissed the breach-of-contract claim because Udo did not sufficiently identify the contracts or the specific terms allegedly breached. To the extent he relied on an implied-in-fact contract, the court found that he did not allege that no valid express contract covered the same subject.

California Commercial Code Section 11204

The court dismissed Udo’s claim under California Commercial Code section 11204. That section can require a bank to refund money sent through noncompliant payment orders. The court found that Udo had not alleged facts showing that the unauthorized transactions or checks met the statutory definition of a payment order. The bank statements the court reviewed also did not reflect transactions qualifying as payment orders.

California Consumer Privacy Act

The court dismissed Udo’s claim under California Civil Code section 1798.150, part of the California Consumer Privacy Act. The court found that Udo mainly repeated the statute’s elements without providing supporting facts. It also found that he did not allege facts showing that any disclosure of personal information resulted from the defendants’ conduct rather than from the loss or theft of his briefcase and its contents.

Unjust Enrichment and Quasi-Contract

The court dismissed Udo’s unjust-enrichment claim. Although California courts may treat such a claim as one seeking restitution under a quasi-contract theory, that theory generally cannot proceed when an enforceable express contract covers the same subject. The court found that Udo had not alleged facts showing that any express contract was unenforceable or void, or facts showing that the defendants obtained a benefit at his expense.

Civil-Rights Claim Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

The court dismissed Udo’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Such a claim requires a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law, meaning the defendant’s conduct must be fairly attributable to the state. The court found that Udo did not specify the constitutional rights at issue in his amended complaint and did not allege facts showing that the private banks conspired or acted jointly with state officials, were closely related to the state, performed a public function, or acted under conduct effectively compelled by the state.

California Commercial Code Section 4207

The court dismissed Udo’s claim under California Commercial Code section 4207(a)(1). That provision concerns a warranty made to a transferee or later collecting bank. The court found that Udo had not alleged facts showing that he was the transferee to whom the warranty was made.

Disposition

Judge Jeffrey White granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court also denied Udo’s request for leave to file a second amended complaint. The court concluded that amendment would be futile because Udo had filed two complaints without changing the underlying facts, the bank statements did not support some of his allegations, and at least some claims were not legally viable. The court dismissed the case with prejudice and directed the Clerk to close the file. Separately, the court denied Bank of America’s request to strike Udo’s omnibus opposition and granted BMO Harris’s request for judicial notice of Udo’s bank statements for the limited purpose of deciding whether to allow amendment.