Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01219/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01219-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID KECK,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BANK OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 08-01219 CRB

ORDER

Now pending before the Court is the motion to dismiss of defendant Bank of America,

N.A. After carefully considering the papers filed by the parties, the Court concludes that oral

argument is unnecessary, see Local Rule 7-1(b), and rules as is set forth below.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss the First Cause of Action for violation of California’s

Unfair Competition Law is GRANTED with leave to amend. Plaintiff must allege which

prong(s) of the statute (unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent) he alleges defendant violated and how

defendant allegedly violated each prong.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Second Cause of Action for violation of California

Penal Code section 630 et seq. is DENIED. Defendant has not yet met its burden of proving

that plaintiff does not state a claim, that is, it has not proved as a matter of law that the afterthe-fact-consent to defendant’s taping of the remainder of the telephone conversation applies

to the earlier-recorded portion of the conversation. Nor has defendant proved that plaintiff 

Case 3:08-cv-01219-CRB Document 14 Filed 04/15/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

cannot show that he had a reasonable expectation that the conversation would not be taped. 

The fact that defendant asked permission to record part of the conversation gives rise to an

inference of an expectation that the conversation would not be taped absent consent.

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Third Cause of Action for violation of the CLRA

is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. As to defendant’s argument that the CLRA does

not apply to financial or insurance transactions, the motion is denied without prejudice to

defendant renewing the motion after the California Supreme Court decides Fairbanks v.

Superior Court, No. S157001. The motion is also denied as to defendant’s argument that the

transaction was for business purposes and therefore not covered by the CLRA. The

allegations of the complaint raise a reasonable inference that the transaction was a consumer

transaction. The motion is granted, however, for failure to state a claim on the ground that

plaintiff does not allege facts in the complaint showing how defendant allegedly violated any

of the practices forbidden by CLRA section 1770; the complaint’s mere recitation of certain

CLRA provisions is insufficient. Plaintiff shall be given leave to amend to address this

deficiency.

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Fourth Cause of Action for enhanced remedies for

financial elder abuse is GRANTED with leave to amend. Plaintiff alleges that defendant

engaged in an “intent to defraud,” but the complaint does not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 9(b). As the Court has not finally determined that plaintiff cannot state any other

causes of action, the Court need not decide at this time whether a claim for financial elder

abuse must be tethered to another cause of action or may stand alone.

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Fifth Cause of Action is DENIED. The

allegations of the complaint support a finding of unjust enrichment, that is, “a failure to make

restitution under circumstances where it is equitable to do so.” Falk v. General Motors

Corp., 496 F.Supp.2d 1088, 1099 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted). As with the elder abuse claim, the Court need not now decide whether unjust

enrichment is a separate cause of action under California law.

Case 3:08-cv-01219-CRB Document 14 Filed 04/15/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G:\CRBALL\2008\1219\orderredismiss1.wpd 3

Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint, if any, within 20 days of the date of this

Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2008 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01219-CRB Document 14 Filed 04/15/08 Page 3 of 3