Case Name: CHANCE WORLD TRADING E.C., Kingdom of Bahrain, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HERITAGE BANK OF COMMERCE, a California corporation, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-16
Citations: 263 F. App'x 630
Docket Number: No. 06-15207
Parties: CHANCE WORLD TRADING E.C., Kingdom of Bahrain, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HERITAGE BANK OF COMMERCE, a California corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 263
Pages: 630–630

Head Matter:
CHANCE WORLD TRADING E.C., Kingdom of Bahrain, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HERITAGE BANK OF COMMERCE, a California corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 06-15207.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Dec. 7, 2007.
Filed Jan. 16, 2008.
David Sheuerman, Esq., Alan L. Martini, Esq., Sheuerman, Martini & Tabari, San Jose, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Breck Milde, Terra Law LLP, San Jose, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: B. FLETCHER, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff-Appellant Chance World Trading (Chance) appeals the entry of summary judgment in favor of DefendantAppellee, Heritage Bank of Commerce (Heritage), on Chance's aiding and abetting claim against Heritage. The district court correctly concluded that no material issue of fact exists as to Heritage's knowledge that funds withdrawn from its accounts were being used for an improper purpose. With no knowledge of the underlying tortious action, no liability under an aiding and abetting theory can exist. See Casey v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 127 Cal.App.4th 1138, 1144, 26 Cal.Rptr.3d 401 (2005) ("Liability may be imposed on one who aids and abets the commission of an intentional tort if the person . knows the other's conduct constitutes a breach of duty and gives substantial assistance or encouragement to the other to so act . ") (citations omitted).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.