N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
PASKENTA B AND OF NOM LAKI INDIANS; PASKENTA ENTER PR ISES C ORPOR ATION, Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. UM PQUA B A

NK; UM PQUA HOLDINGS C ORPOR

ATION, De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 17-15486 D.C . No. 2:15-c v-00538-M C E-C M K
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia M o rrison C . Engla

nd, Jr., Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 26, 2021 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : KLEINFELD, R AW LINSON, a

nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s. This a ppe a l by Appe lla nts-Pla intiffs Pa ske nta

B and of Nom lak i India

ns a nd Pa ske n ta Ente rprise s C orporation (c olle c tive ly , Pa ske nta ) se e ks to re v e rse the distric t c o urt’ s dismissa l of Pa ske nta 's third a m e nde d c om

pla int a sse rting c la im s 

# FIL ED
MAY3 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.for ne glige nc e , bre a c h of c ontra c t a nd a iding a

nd a be tting a ga inst Appe l le e s-De fe nda

nts Um pqua B ank a nd Um pqua Holdings C orporation (c olle c tive ly , Um

p q ua B ank). W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. R e vie wing denov o , we a ffirm
. Se e N orthstar Fin. Advisors, Inc . v . Sc hw ab Inv e sts. , 904 F.3d 821, 828 (9th C ir. 2018). 1. Ne glige nc e Claim Pa ske nta ’ s c om

pla int doe s not pla

usibly a lle ge fa c ts to support a

c la im for
ne glige nc e . The duty

to inve stiga

te and disc ove r the wrongdoing of Pa ske nta ’ s
a uthoriz e d signa

torie s fe ll to Pa ske nta , a

nd not to Um

pqua B a nk. Se e C a l. Fin. C ode § 1451 (providing tha t ba nks m ay a ssum e that a

ny a c t ivity initia te d by an
a uthoriz e d signe r is for a

va lid purposeunle ss the ba nk re c e ive s writte n

notic e from the de btor othe rwise ); se e also C haze n v . C

e nte nnial Bank

, 61 C a l. App. 4th 532, 537 (1998) (holding tha t “ c om m e rc ia l ba

nks ha ve no duty

to polic e the ir fiduc ia ry a c c ounts . . . a

nd a re n ot lia ble for the m isa

ppropria tion of trust funds by the t ruste e ” ) (c ita

t ions a n d a lte ration omitte d); De

se rt Be rmuda Props. v. Union Bank , 265 C a l. App. 2d 146, 150 (1968) (holding tha t a ba nk “ wa s not re quire d to inquire into thefina

nc ia l re l ationship of [the

c o rporation] and its offic e rs a nd dire c tors a c ting within the sc ope of the ir c onfe rre d a uthority until B ank re c e ive d

2notic e tha

t the ir a uthority ha d be e n re voke d or B ank offic ia lly le arne d tha

t
a uthoriz ation ne ve r e x i ste d ” ). 2. B r e ac h of Contr ac t Claim The c ontra c t be twe e n Um pqua B ank a nd Pa ske nta im

p ose d no obliga

tion on Um pqua B ank to m o nitor tra

nsa c tions by

a uthoriz e d signa

torie s on Pa ske nta ’ s
a c c ounts a

t Um pqua B ank. Se e C

haze n , 61 C a l. App. 4th a t 537 (e xpla ining tha

t

“ the re lationship of ba

nk a nd de positor is founde d on c o ntra c t . . . whic h is ordina rily m e m oria l iz e d by

a signa ture c ard tha

t the de positor signs upon ope ning the a c c ount” ); se e also Black mon v . Hale , 463 P.2d 418, 422 (C a l . 1970) (in ba nk) (holding tha

t the signa

ture c ard “ se rve s a s a

c ontra c t be twe e n the de p ositor a

nd the ba nk for the ha

ndling of the a c c ount” ). Um pqua B ank wa s not notifie d of a ny
c ha nge in a c c ount a

uthoriz ation until Pa ske n ta ’ s M ay 30 c e a s e and de sist le tte r, whic h Pa ske nta

a c knowle dge s tha

t Um pqua B ank honore d. 3. Aiding and Abe tting Claim Pa ske nta ’ s c om

pla int doe s not suffic ie n tly a lle ge a c la i m

for a iding a

nd
a be tting. Spe c ific a l ly , Pa s ke nta fa ile d to pla

usibly a lle ge tha

t Um pqua B a nk
a c tua lly kne w tha t proc e ssing tra

nsa c tions re que ste d by

Pa ske n ta ’ s a

uthoriz e d signa torie s, a ssiste d those e m

ploy e e s in c om

m itting a spe c i fic tort. Se e Das v
. Bank of Am., N

.A. , 186 C a l. App. 4th 727, 745 (2010). Instea d , Pa ske nta a lle ge d
3that

va rious irre gula

ritie s re quire d furthe r inve stiga tion by Um pqua B ank to de te rm i ne whe t

h e r Pa ske nta

e m ploy e e s we re e nga ge d in wrongdoing. Howe ve r,
a c tua l knowle dge is re quire d to e sta blish a n a iding a nd a b e tting c la im
. Se eDas , 186 C a l. App. 4th a

t 745 (a ffirm ing dismissa l of a n a iding a n d a be tting c la im be c a use pla intiff fa ile d to a lle ge tha t “ the ba nk ha d a c tua l knowle dge of the unde rly ing wrong it purporte dly a ide d a nd a be tte d” ); s e e also C

hav e z v . Unite d State s , 683 F.3d 1102, 1108-10 (9th C ir. 2012) (e xpla ining tha t “ c o nc l usory sta te m e nts . . . a

re not e ntitle d to thepre sum ption of truth” ). B e c a use Pa ske n ta

fa ile d to sta te any pla usible c la i m

a g a i nst Um

pqua B ank, the d istric t c o urt did not err in dismissing Pa ske nta ’ s third a m e n de d c om

pla int. AFFIRM E D.

4