N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
SALM A AGHM A

NE, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. B ANK OF AM E R IC A, N.A.,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 15-15482 D.C . No. 4:13-c v-03698-DM R
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Donna M . R

y u, M a gistra

te Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 17, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B ER

ZON a nd C LIFTON, C irc uit Judge s, a nd M UELLER , ** Distric t Judge
. Pla intiff-Appe lla

nt Sa lm a Aghm ane a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r gran ting pa

rtia l sum m ary judgm e nt to De fe nda

nt-Appe l le e B ank of Am e ric a , N.A.



# FIL ED
M AY17 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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.

* * The Honora

ble Kim be rly J. M ue lle r, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the E a s te rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.(“ B ANA” ). B e c a use we c onc l ude a

re a s ona ble jury c ould find B ANA a c te d with
m a lic e a s provide d

by the inte re ste d

pe rsons privile g e e sta

blishe d by

C a l ifornia C ivil C ode se c tion 47(c ), we re ve rse and re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. C a lifornia ’ s inte re ste d pe rsons privile ge im m uniz e s a form e r e m

ploy e r from tort lia bility whe n the e m

ploy e r c om

m unic ate s without ma lic e to a n inte re ste d third pa rty re ga rding a form e r e m

ploy e e ’ s job pe rform anc e . C a l. C iv. C ode § 47(c ); Souk up v . Law Offic e s of He rbe rt Hafif

, 39 C a l. 4th 260, 293 (2006). In a na ly z ing
m a lic e , c ourts foc us on a

n individual’ s sta

te of m ind, ra

the r tha n c onduc t, a

nd do not infe r m a l ic e from

the c om m unic ation itse lf. N

oe l v . Riv e r Hills W

ilsons, Inc

. , 113 C a l. App. 4th 1363, 1370–71 (2003). A pla intiff m ay prove m a l ic e in two
way s: first, by

providing dire c t e vide nc e tha t the de fe nda

nt’ s c om m unic at ion wa s

“ m otiva te d by hatre d or ill will”

towa rds the pla intiff, Agarw al v . J ohnson , 25 C a l. 3d 932, 945 (1979) (quoting Bre w e r v . Se c o nd Baptist C hurc h , 32 C a l . 2d 791, 797 (1948)); a nd se c o nd, by

providing c irc um sta

ntia l e vide nc e tha

t “ the de fe nda

nt la c ke d re a sona

b le grounds for be lie f in the truth of thepublic ation a nd the re fore
a c te d in re c kle ss disre ga

rd of the pla intiff’ s rights,” S anborn v

. C

hronic le Pub. C

o. ,

218 C a l. 3d 406, 413 (1976) (quoting Roe me r v . Re tail C re dit C o. , 44 C a l. App. 3d 926, 936 (1975)). 1 Only

the se c ond, c irc um sta

n tia l m e thod is a

t issue he re . To prove re c kle ss disre ga rd, the pla i ntiff m

ust show the

de fe nda nt “ m a de the fa lse public ation with a

high de gre e of a

ware ne ss of . . . proba

ble fa lsity , or m

ust have e n te rta ine d se rious doubts a s to the truth of his public ation.” Young v . C BS Broad., Inc

. , 212 C a l. App. 4th 551, 563 (2012) (a lte ra tion in origina

l ) (c ita tions
om i tte d) (quoting Harte -Hank s C ommc ’ns, Inc . v . C

onnaughton , 491 U.S. 657, 667 (1989)). Ne ithe r “ [t] he fa i lure to c onduc t a thorough a

nd obje c tive inve stiga tion, sta nding a lone ,” nor “ m e re proof of ill will,” is suffic ie nt to prove
a c tua l m a lic e . Re ade r ’s Dige st Ass’n v . Supe rior C

ourt , 37 C a l. 3d 244, 258 (1984) (c ita

tions omitte d). A de fe nda nt’ s re c kle ssne ss or knowle dge of fa lsity m ay be a d duc e d “ by

a c c um u lation a nd by a ppropria t e infe re nc e s,” Fishe r v . Larse n , 138 C a l. App. 3d 627, 640 (1982), from “ [e ] vide nc e of ne glige n c e , of m otive and of inte nt,” Re ade r’s Dige st , 37 C a l. 3d a

t 257 (quoting Goldw ate r v . Ginzburg , 414 F.2d 324, 342 (2d C ir. 1969)). Evide nc e showing a publishe r’ s se rious doubts a s to the truth of a

public ation c an inc lude “ [a ] fa ilure to inve s tiga te , a nge r and

1 In inte rpre ting theinte re ste d pe rsons privile g e , C a lifornia c ourts fre que ntly borrow the “ a c tua l m a lic e ” sta nda rd from the First Am e ndm e n t c onte xt. Se e Mc G rory v . Applie d Signal Te c h., Inc

. , 212 C a l. App. 4th 1510, 1539 n.18 (2013) (c olle c ting c a se s). This m e m orandum disposition re lie s on both line s of a uthority
. 3hostility

towa rd the pla intiff, [a

nd] re lia nc e upon sourc e s known to beunre lia ble or known to bebia se d a ga inst thepla intiff[.] ” Id. at 258 (c ita tions omitte d). A re a sona ble jury c ould find B A

NA a c te d re c kle ssly

whe n it re porte d Aghm ane to a

third pa rty data ba se m a inta ine d by

Ea rly W arning Se rvic e s, LLC (“ EW S” ), ba se d on sta

te m e nts m a de by

Aghm ane ’ s c ousin, D.A. 2 EW S provide s fraud pre ve ntion se rvic e s to m e m be r fina n c i a l institutions a

nd m a inta ins a

data ba se of m e m be rs’ form e r e m

ploy e e s te rm inate d for knowingly c a using or a tte m pting to
c a use fina nc ia l loss. In rep o rting Aghm an e to the EW S sy ste m , B ANA e ffe c tive ly
m a de the a ffirm ative re pre se ntation tha t it ha d “ c o nc lusive e vide n c e of c rim ina l wrongdoing”by

Aghm ane . To e sta

blish m a lic e he re , [i] t is not s uf

f i cie nt to show that t

he sta te m e nts we re ina c c urate , o r ev en unre a sona ble
. Only w illful fa lsity o r re c kle s sne s s w il l suffic e [be c a use it] is only w he n the neg l i ge nc e am ounts to a re c kle ss or wanton disre ga rd for the truth, s o a s to r eas o na bly im ply a willful disre ga

rd for or avoida n c e of a c c ura c y , tha

t m a lic e is shown. K ashian v . Harriman , 98 C a l. App. 4th 892, 931 (2002) (inte rna l quota tion m arks
and e llipsis om

itte d) (quoting C

abanas v . Gloodt Assoc

s. , 942 F. Supp. 1295, 1301–02 (E.D. C a l. 1996)). A ge nuine disputeof fa c t e xists if B ANA m a de the

2 B e c a use she pre se nte d this the ory in he r brie fs be low a

nd the distric t c ourt a ddre s se d it, Aghm a

ne pre se rve d he r argum e nt tha t B ANA a c te d re c k le ssly

by m aking a sta te m e nt with no re a sona

ble be lie f in its truth. Se e W h ittak e r C orp. v . Ex e c uair C

orp. , 953 F.2d 510, 515 (9th C ir. 1992). 4re pre se ntation with re c kle s s disre ga rd for Aghm ane ’ s rights be c a use B ANA e ithe r did not be lie v e the sta

te m e nt to be true or it unre a sona bly be lie ve d the sta

t e m e nt to be true . Se e Mc Grory , 212 C a l . App. 4th a t 1540. “ In e ithe r c a se , a

fa c t-finde r would ha ve to a sc e rta in wha

t [B ANA] subje c tive ly

kne wan d be lie ve d a

bout the topic at the tim e [it] spoke
. ” Id. The re c ord in this c a se re ve a ls a “ she sa id-she sa id” c onflic t ba se d on the sta te m e nts of Aghm ane a

nd D.A. B ANA’ s c a se note s sum m ariz ing its fra

u d
ana ly st’ s c onve rsation with D.A., c onduc te d through a fore ign la

ngua ge inte rpre te r, indic ate D.A. de nie d giving Aghman e a uthoriz ation to withdra

w funds from he r a c c o unt. B ut D.A. de c line d to se e k prose c ution a ga inst a ny one or to ide n tify Aghm ane in writing. Aghm ane told B ANA, ora lly

and in writing, tha

t D.A. a uthoriz e d the tra

nsa c t ions. Aghm ane a lso provide d B ANA with doc um e nts showing D.A. owe d he r m one y , c onsiste n t with Aghmane ’ s c onte ntion tha t she pa id for D.A.’ s housing a nd living e xpe nse s whe n D.A. m o ve d to Sa n Franc isc o. B ANA’ s le a d inve stiga

tor on this matte r, Kare n M uth, ne ve r spoke with D.A. And
no one from

B ANA c onta c te d D.A. a g a i n a fte r Aghm ane told he r side of the story . B a se d on the se fa c ts, a

re a sona ble jury c o uld find B ANA e ithe r kne w or
re a s ona bly should ha

v e known it did not ha

ve “ c onc lusive e v ide nc e ” tha t Aghm ane ha d e nga ge d in c rim ina l wrongdoing.
5A re a sona ble jury a lso c ould find B ANA a c te d re c kle s sly by not furthe r inve stiga ting Aghm a

ne ’ s story . While a ne glige nt inve stiga tion a lone c annot
e sta blish a c tua l m a l ic e , Rolle nhage n v . C ity of Orange , 116 C a l. App. 3d 414, 423 (1981), disapprov e d o

f on othe r grounds by

Brow n v . K

e lly Broad. C

o. , 48 C a l. 3d 711, 738 (1989), e vide n c e of B ANA’ s c om ple te disre ga

rd of Aghm ane ’ s “ de nia ls
m ay , by a c c um ulat ion a nd by a p propria te infe re nc e s, show re c k le ssne ss,” Fishe r , 138 C a l. App. 3d a

t 640. W e re a

jury to find B ANA’ s fa ilure to inve stiga t e “ wa s a produc t of a

de libe ra te de c ision not to a c quire knowle dge of fa c ts tha t m i ght
c onfirm t he proba ble fa lsity of [the ] c ha

rge s,” it c ould find a c tua l m a lic e in B ANA’ s fa ilure to inve s tiga te the c onflic ting a c c ounts a fte r spe aking with Aghm ane . Antonov ic h v . Supe r ior C ourt , 234 C a l. App. 3d 1041, 1048 (1991) (quoting Harte -Hank

s , 491 U.S. a

t 692). Give n B ANA’ s c om m unic ation to EW S that it ha d c onc lusive e v ide n c e tha t Aghm ane e nga ge d in c rim ina l wrongdoing, a
re a s ona ble jury c ould find B ANA’ s “ inve stiga tion [to be ] grossly

ina de quate unde r the c irc um s ta

nc e s.” Fishe r , 138 C a l. App. 3d a t 640 (quoting Vande nburg v

. N e w sw e e k , Inc

. , 507 F.2d 1024, 1026 (5th C ir. 1975)). This, too, c ould a llow a jury to infe r a c tua l m a lic e . Id.

6The distric t c ourt e rre d in gra nting sum m ary judgm e n t to B ANA. W e
re ve rse an d re m and for furthe r proc e e dings c onsiste nt with this m e m orandum

disposition. RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D.

7