Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03446/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03446-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

SANDRA OPERA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION,

Defendant. /

No. C 05-3446 SBA

ORDER

[Docket No. 24]

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Bank of America's Motion for Summary

Judgment [Docket No. 24].

A. Factual Background

Plaintiff Sandra Opera is the petitioner in a dissolution of marriage action in the Superior

Court of Orange County, California. Compl. at ¶ 5. Plaintiff and her estranged husband, Robert E.

Opera, both hold accounts with Defendant Bank of America. Id. at ¶ 13; see also Shihad Decl. at ¶

2. Plaintiff alleges that the marital assets exceed eighty million dollars and that her husband has

only disclosed a small portion of those assets in the divorce proceedings. Compl. at ¶ 6-7. 

Rather than subpoena account records for the divorce proceedings, Plaintiff has initiated this

action against Bank of America, alleging that it has concealed assets from her. Defendant states that

it has supplied Plaintiff with true and correct copies of all available account statements related to the

Opera accounts. Shihad Decl. at ¶ 4. 

Plaintiff states that on or about March 9, 2005, she met with Mike Shihad at a Bank of

America Branch in Costa Mesa, California, and requested to review the Opera portfolio and to

withdraw her fifty percent of the community property. Compl. at ¶ 9. Mr. Shihad served as the

Client Manager for the accounts held by Plaintiff and Robert Opera. Shihad Decl. at ¶ 2. Mr.

Case 4:05-cv-03446-SBA Document 32 Filed 09/15/06 Page 1 of 8
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

Shihad advised Plaintiff that he could not comply with her request, and referred her to Mr. Richard

Reabb, the Opera's private banker. Id. Plaintiff contends that she made numerous attempts to

contact Mr. Reabb including an unsuccessful attempt to meet with him at his office in Newport

Beach, California. Id. at ¶ 10-11. She renewed her request for an accounting and said that she

wished to withdraw her fifty percent of the community property interest. Id. at ¶ 11. Mr. Reabb

called Plaintiff at her home, but refused to give out any information concerning the Opera accounts

or to allow her access to any of the accounts. Id. at ¶ 12. 

Defendant's records indicate that Mr. Opera holds two individual accounts: (1) an Investment

Services, Inc. brokerage account, and (2) an Investment Services, Inc. checking account. Shihad

Decl. at ¶ 2. Mr. Opera also holds three accounts jointly with Plaintiff: (1) a Premier Interest

Checking account, (2) an Investment CD, and (3) an Interest Maximizer account. Id. These

accounts are held in Defendant's Premier Banking division, for accounts with assets in excess of

$100,000. Shihad Depo. at 8-9. Mr. Opera is not named as an account-holder on any other Bank of

America accounts. Shihad Decl. at ¶ 4. Plaintiff admitted in her deposition that she does not know

whether her husband has any companies with accounts at Bank of America, and if he does, she

admitted that she is not named on those accounts. Powell Decl. at ¶ 4. Plaintiff further admitted in

her deposition that she could not show that the account statements produced by Bank of America in

this matter are inaccurate. Powell Decl. at ¶ 4.

B. Procedural History

On August 25, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging that Defendant Bank of America

has (1) breached their fiduciary duty to customers and investors by failing to act honestly and in

good faith, (2) conspired with Plaintiff's husband, Mr. Robert Opera, to deprive her of access and

use of her share in the couple's accounts and investments, and (3) exercised unauthorized dominion

and control over Plaintiff's assets that amounts to unlawful conversion. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that

Defendant owes her an accounting for the funds, assets, and investments it received, managed and

controlled.

Case 4:05-cv-03446-SBA Document 32 Filed 09/15/06 Page 2 of 8
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 3

On November 14, 2005, Defendant filed an Answer, denying the allegations and asserting

eight affirmative defenses. Defendant now moves for Summary Judgement or, in the alternative,

Summary Adjudication. Defendant also requests costs.

LEGAL STANDARD

A. Summary Judgment

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for summary judgment when “ the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show

that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a

judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). 

In considering a motion for summary judgment, the court must examine all of the evidence in

the light most favorable to the non-moving party. United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655

(1962). If the moving party does not bear the burden of proof at trial, he or she may discharge his

burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact remains by demonstrating that “there is an

absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,

325 (1986). Once the moving party meets the requirements of Rule 56 by showing there is an absence

of evidence to support the non-moving party's case, the burden shifts to the party resisting the motion,

who “must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson v. Liberty

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 ( 1986).

ANALYSIS

A. Plaintiff's First Cause of Action: Breach of Fiduciary Duty

"It has long been regarded as 'axiomatic that the relationship between a bank and its

depositor arising out of a general deposit is that of a debtor and creditor. A debt is not a trust and

there is not a fiduciary relation between debtor and creditor as such." Kim v. Sumitomo Bank, 17

Cal. App. 4th 974, 979 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (citations omitted).

Thus, Defendant argues, it owed no fiduciary duty to Plaintiff as a depositor, and her claim

for breach of fiduciary duty must fail.

Case 4:05-cv-03446-SBA Document 32 Filed 09/15/06 Page 3 of 8
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

1 A verified complaint may be treated as an opposing affidavit under Rule 56 if the plaintiff

states under penalty of perjury that its contents are true and correct, and if the allegations are based on

personal knowledge. See, e.g., Schroeder v McDonald, 55 F3d 454, 460 & nn10-11 (9th Cir. 1995).

Plaintiff's Complaint nowhere states that is it signed under penalty of perjury, so the Court will not treat

it as an opposing affidavit under Rule 56. 

4

Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the instant Motion for Summary Judgment, nor has she

set forth any evidence disputing Defendant's version of the facts. Plaintiff merely asserts in the

Complaint that the bank owes her a fiduciary duty "as a banking and investment business," and that

the duty was breached by (1) Defendant's failure to give her an accounting or disclosure of the

holdings and value of the Opera portfolio, (2) Defendant's failure to release any portion of the

portfolio after acknowledging that she had ownership rights in the various accounts and investments,

and (3) Defendant's failure to give her any access to the various accounts and investments. 

 Rule 56 makes clear that Plaintiff must go beyond the pleadings and, by her own affidavits

or discovery, "set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(e).1

 It is not the task of the district court to scour the record in search of a genuine issue of triable

fact. Keenan v. Allen, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996). The nonmoving party has the burden of

identifying with reasonable particularity the evidence that precludes summary judgment. Id. If the

nonmoving party fails to do so, the district court may properly grant summary judgment in favor of

the moving party. See id.; see, e.g., Carmen v. San Francisco Unified School District, 237 F.3d

1026, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that, even if there is evidence in the court file which creates

a genuine issue of material fact, a district court may grant summary judgment if the opposing papers

do not include or conveniently refer to that evidence).

Plaintiff makes vague allegations regarding Defendant's conduct which fail to create a

material issue of fact. She offers no legal authority to counter Defendant's argument that she was

not owed a fiduciary duty, nor does she proffer any material evidence whatsoever to support her

contention that there was a duty owed and breached. 

Therefore, Bank of America is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's first cause of

action for breach of fiduciary duty. 

Case 4:05-cv-03446-SBA Document 32 Filed 09/15/06 Page 4 of 8
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

Plaintiff identifies no source of law for her conspiracy claim, but since this action is before the

Court based on diversity of citizenship, the Court assumes that California law applies. 

5

B. Plaintiff's Second Cause of Action: Conspiracy

Under California law,2

 "in order to state a cause of action for civil conspiracy, the complaint

must allege (1) the formation and operation of the conspiracy, (2) the wrongful act or acts done

pursuant thereto, and (3) the damage resulting from such act or acts." H & M Associates v. City of

El Centro, 109 Cal. App. 3d 399, 413 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980) (citations omitted).

Defendant argues that there is no evidence to support the allegation of a conspiracy between

themselves and Plaintiff's estranged husband. Defendant declares (through Shihad) that it has fully

disclosed all assets held in the Opera accounts. Shihad Decl. at ¶ 2, 4. Plaintiff supplies no

evidence that Mr. Opera did not fully disclose all Bank of America-held assets in their divorce

proceedings. Finally, Mrs. Opera testified in her deposition that she cannot show any inaccuracies

in the account statements disclosed by Defendant. Powell Decl. ¶ 4. Instead, Plaintiff simply

alleges in the Complaint that she was "refused access to her various accounts and investments," and

that Defendant and Mr. Opera have acted in concert with the intent to injure her. Compl. at ¶ 20. 

Plaintiff does not put forward any specific evidence to support these allegations. Therefore, no

cause of action exists because none of the requisite elements of conspiracy have been established. 

Bank of America is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's second cause of action for

conspiracy.

C. Plaintiff's Third Cause of Action: Conversion

"Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another. The elements

of a conversion are the plaintiff's ownership or right to possession of the property at the time of the

conversion; the defendant's conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and

damages." Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Zerin, 53 Cal. App. 4th 445, 451 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997). Title to

funds passes immediately to the bank upon deposit, and the bank may use the funds for its own

business purposes. The bank does not thereby act as trustee and cannot be charged with converting

Case 4:05-cv-03446-SBA Document 32 Filed 09/15/06 Page 5 of 8
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 6

the deposit to its own use. Smiths' Cash Store v. First Nat. Bank, 149 Cal. 32, 35 (1906); Morse v.

Crocker Nat'l Bank, 142 Cal. App. 3d 228, 232 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983); Lee v. Bank of America, 218

Cal. App. 3d 914, 919-920 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990).

Defendant submits that Plaintiff cannot establish any cause of action for conversion against

Bank of America because their relationship was solely one of a bank and its depositor. Thus, as a

matter of law, no conversion claim lies against Bank of America.

Plaintiff merely alleges in her Complaint that Defendant "came to exercise unauthorized

dominion and control over plaintiff's assets," compl. at ¶ 24, and that "Defendant's dominion and

control over the property has been to the exclusion of the plaintiff." Id. at ¶ 25. This is the sum total

of her legal and factual argument in support of her claim. 

Plaintiff has failed to meet that burden of showing a triable issue of fact with respect to

Defendant's alleged conversion of her property. Therefore, Bank of America is entitled to summary

judgment on Plaintiff's third cause of action for conversion. 

D. Plaintiff's Fourth Cause of Action: Accounting

A complaint sufficiently states a cause of action in equity for an accounting by alleging (1) a

relationship between the parties or other circumstances that requires an accounting in equity (or, in

other words, circumstances showing that legal remedies are inadequate); and (2) that an unknown

balance is due that cannot not be ascertained without an accounting, the means of which are within

the knowledge of the defendant. See Whann v. Doell, 192 Cal. 680, 684 (1923); Kritzer v.

Lancaster, 96 Cal. App. 2d 1, 7 (Cal. Ct. App. 1950). 

However, a defendant can defend against an action for an accounting by showing that it has

rendered to the plaintiff accounts showing defendant's receipts and disbursements, and the plaintiff

has not challenged the truth of any item or objected to the accounts. See Guy Coburn, Inc. v. Tiffany

P., Inc., 37 Cal. App. 2d 410, 414 (Cal. Ct. App. 1940). 

Bank of America contends that they have given complete and accurate account statements to

Case 4:05-cv-03446-SBA Document 32 Filed 09/15/06 Page 6 of 8
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 7

Plaintiff. Plaintiff testified at her deposition that "she could not show the account statements

produced by Bank of America in this matter are inaccurate." Powell Decl. at ¶ 4. Additionally,

Plaintiff could not establish the existence of any corporate accounts her estranged husband may hold

at Bank of America, and admitted under oath that she does not know of any such accounts and is not

named as an account holder for any corporate account. Powell Decl. at ¶ 4. 

Again, Plaintiff did not file an opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgement, nor

has she contradicted the facts shown in Defendant's declarations by setting out specific facts in

declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents. Plaintiff simply

alleges that Bank of America owes her a fiduciary duty and must account to her pursuant to that

duty, and claims that Defendant has not rendered an accounting of the funds, assets, and investments

in its care. Compl. at ¶¶ 28-31. Plaintiff makes no attempt to rebut Bank of America's claim that all

account statements have been disclosed. Plaintiff therefore fails to create a material issue of fact or

law, and Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs' fourth cause of action for

accounting.

E. Defendant's Request for Costs

Monetary sanctions may be imposed on a party pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, which is aimed

at penalizing conduct that unreasonably and vexatiously multiplies proceedings, or pursuant to the

court’s inherent power. Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir. 2001).

Defendant asks for "costs incurred herein and such other relief as may be just." Notice of

Motion at ¶ 1. However, Defendant fails to cite to any authority, or to allege any basis for its prayer

for relief. Therefore, the request for costs is denied.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is

GRANTED.

Case 4:05-cv-03446-SBA Document 32 Filed 09/15/06 Page 7 of 8
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 8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 9/14/06 

 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-03446-SBA Document 32 Filed 09/15/06 Page 8 of 8