Court Opinion

ID: 9400805
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-09 15:01:36.617951+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:48.085462
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10182    Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 06/09/2023   Page: 1 of 15

                                                   [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                    In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                 No. 23-10182
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        RACHELLE ARBERMAN,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
        versus
        PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

                                                     Defendant-Appellee.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 9:22-cv-80983-AMC
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10182         Document: 25-1         Date Filed: 06/09/2023         Page: 2 of 15

        2                          Opinion of the Court                       23-10182

        Before WILSON, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
               Plaintiff-Appellant Rachelle Arberman appeals the district
        court’s order granting Defendant-Appellee PNC Bank’s motion to
        dismiss Arberman’s negligence claim. For the following reasons,
        we affirm.
                I.      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1
               Arberman’s Amended Complaint alleged that PNC Bank
        (“PNC”) negligently failed to protect Arberman from the financial
        exploitation of an unknown fraudster.
               Rachelle Arberman was born in 1949 and resides in Palm
        Beach County, Florida. On or about August 28, 2020, Arberman
        “was contacted by a fraudster who falsely claimed to be a federal
        law enforcement officer.” The unknown fraudster (“Doe”) told Ar-
        berman “that her bank account had been compromised” and that
        Arberman “must assist federal law enforcement in apprehending
        the criminal.” Doe also told Arberman that if she refused to assist
        him, she would be investigated as an accomplice to the fraud.

        1 Because the procedural posture of this case involves a Rule 12(b)(6) motion,
        we must accept the allegations of plaintiff’s amended complaint as true. See
        Marsh v. Butler County, 268 F.3d 1014, 1023 (11th Cir. 2001) (en banc), abrogated
        in part by Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 561–63 (2007). The facts set
        forth in this section of the opinion therefore are taken from the amended com-
        plaint and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
USCA11 Case: 23-10182      Document: 25-1     Date Filed: 06/09/2023     Page: 3 of 15

        23-10182               Opinion of the Court                        3

        From August 28, 2020, to November 3, 2020, Arberman withdrew
        sums of money from her PNC Bank account, purchased gift cards
        using her PNC credit and debit cards, and purchased cryptocur-
        rency using her PNC account all for Doe’s fraudulent enrichment.
               Arberman’s Amended Complaint alleged that her with-
        drawal behavior during the time in which she was sending money
        to Doe was “wildly inconsistent” with her normal monthly trans-
        actions. Over three months, Arberman made over twenty with-
        drawals from her bank account, some days totaling up to $119,000
        in withdrawals. In total, Doe fraudulently induced Arberman to
        withdraw over $400,000 from her PNC account and transfer those
        funds in various forms to Doe’s “fraudulent enterprises.” These
        withdrawals “raised the suspicion of a bank employee who ap-
        proached [Arberman] to inquire what was going on.” The safety
        measures in place at PNC “failed to detect [Arberman’s] large de-
        posits and withdrawals from its branches in the same day.”
               At the time of Doe’s fraud, Arberman was 71 years old.
        Prior the fraud, Arberman began to suffer from cognitive and phys-
        ical decline consistent with that of an aging individual. As a result
        of Arberman’s cognitive decline, she was “slower in making deci-
        sions than she was in the past” and “less confident in her decision-
        making abilities.” Arberman alleged that when she was younger,
        “she was distrusting and it would have been very unlikely that she
        would fall victim to this type of fraud.” Arbeman also alleged that
        “her ability to provide for her own care or protection was impaired
        due to the infirmities of aging, namely cognitive decline, and
USCA11 Case: 23-10182      Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 06/09/2023      Page: 4 of 15

        4                      Opinion of the Court                  23-10182

        accordingly she was a vulnerable adult, under section 415.102(28),
        Florida Statutes.
               On May 25, 2022, Arberman filed a complaint in state court
        alleging the negligence of PNC. The case was removed to federal
        court, and on August 2, 2022, Arberman filed the Amended Com-
        plaint, which brought one count of common law negligence, as-
        serting that PNC breached its duty to report Doe’s exploitation of
        Arberman under Florida’s Adult Protective Services Act
        (“FAPSA”), specifically Section 415.1034(1)(a)(8), by failing to: (1)
        question the numerous withdrawal requests; (2) take action after
        the sole employee questioned the withdrawals; (3) flag the contin-
        ued unordinary behavior in Arberman’s account and credit card;
        (4) take steps to assist Arberman despite having reasonable suspi-
        cions of victimization; and (5) to report financial exploitation as re-
        quired by Florida law. She alleged that “PNC Bank ha[d] a duty to
        [Arberman] if PNC Bank ha[d] reasonable cause to suspect that [she
        was] being abused, neglected, or exploited.” Arberman sought
        damages of $428,490.00 and attorneys’ fees and costs.
               On August 16, 2022, PNC moved to dismiss the Amended
        Complaint. PNC made three primary arguments. First, the bank
        argued that Arberman’s allegations were insufficient to satisfy the
        statutory definition of “vulnerable adult” under FAPSA because Ar-
        berman “merely regurgitated the statutory definition and asserted
        sparse allegations to support [her] claim of vulnerability.” Addi-
        tionally on this point, PNC argued that Arberman’s own com-
        plaint, which alleged that she was in control of her finances and
USCA11 Case: 23-10182      Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 06/09/2023     Page: 5 of 15

        23-10182               Opinion of the Court                         5

        “had the cognitive and physical ability to purchase cryptocurrency
        from at least four different vendors,” shows that she could perform
        daily activities and provide for her own care. Second, PNC argued,
        even assuming Arberman was a vulnerable adult, that Arberman’s
        complaint did not sufficiently allege that she was a victim of “ex-
        ploitation” under FAPSA. PNC stated that Arberman failed to sat-
        isfy the definition of “exploitation” under FAPSA because Doe was
        not in a “position of trust and confidence” with Arberman and did
        not know nor should have known that Arberman lacked the “ca-
        pacity to consent.” Finally, PNC argued that no other duty of care
        applied in this case because the Eleventh Circuit has made clear
        that Florida law does not require banks to investigate transactions
        made by authorized users.
               Arberman responded to PNC’s motion to dismiss. She first
        argued that PNC had a common law duty to protect Arberman
        where at least one employee expressed reasonable suspicion that
        she was being exploited. Next, Arberman argued that she plausibly
        alleged that she was a “vulnerable adult” under FAPSA due to her
        need for assistance providing for her own protection and her ad-
        vanced age that has made her more easily influenced by those seek-
        ing to exploit older adults. Finally, she argues that her exploitation
        falls within FAPSA because the statute does not “necessitate that
        the taking, misappropriation, misuse, or transfer be done directly
        by the individual exploiting the vulnerable adult.”
              PNC replied, first arguing that its alleged actions did not cre-
        ate a duty of care where the transactions were executed by
USCA11 Case: 23-10182      Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 06/09/2023     Page: 6 of 15

        6                      Opinion of the Court                 23-10182

        Arberman herself. PNC repeated its arguments that Arberman’s
        age and conclusory statements alone do not sufficiently allege her
        status as a vulnerable adult. As to “exploitation,” PNC states that
        Arberman misses the point that a critical element of “exploitation”
        is that the person exploiting must be in a “position of trust and con-
        fidence” or knew or should have known that the vulnerable adult
        lacked the “capacity to consent.”
               On November 30, 2022, a hearing was held on the motion,
        where Arberman attempted to satisfy the requirements for “exploi-
        tation” by arguing that Doe was in a position of trust and confi-
        dence with Arberman and that he should have known that she
        lacked the capacity to consent because she fell victim to his scheme.
               On December 19, 2022, the district court issued an order
        granting PNC’s motion to dismiss. The district court first analyzed
        Arberman’s complaint under FAPSA, concluding that Arberman
        did not plausibly allege that she was a “vulnerable adult.” Noting
        that FAPSA does not “require[] complete dependency to reach ‘vul-
        nerable adult’ status,” but does require “impairment of a person’s
        performance of daily activities,” the district court concluded that
        Arberman’s “generalized allegations do not support such an im-
        pairment.” The fact that Arberman traveled to multiple branches
        on various days, purchased cryptocurrency via online vendors, and
        sent cash withdrawals at other vendors weighed against her allega-
        tions of “vulnerable adult” status, as did the Amended Complaint’s
        lack of allegations that Arberman needed assistance for daily living.
USCA11 Case: 23-10182         Document: 25-1   Date Filed: 06/09/2023     Page: 7 of 15

        23-10182                 Opinion of the Court                       7

               As to “exploitation” under FAPSA, the district court also
        agreed with PNC. The court determined that Doe did not fall into
        any of the specified categories sufficient to occupy a “position of
        trust and confidence,” and that Arberman did not allege that Doe
        had reason to know of any alleged “lack of capacity.” The district
        court noted that “while transferring $400,000 to a person believed
        to be a law enforcement officer could establish that [Arberman]
        makes irresponsible financial decisions,” it does not sufficiently al-
        lege that Doe knew that Arberman lacked “sufficient understand-
        ing to make and communicate responsible decisions” regarding her
        property.
               Having established that Arberman failed to state a claim for
        negligence for FAPSA violations, the district court further con-
        cluded that Arberman identified no other duty on the part of PNC
        that could support her negligence claim. Although Arberman al-
        leged a baseline duty of care owed, the district court noted that
        “banking institutions do not have a duty under Florida law to in-
        vestigate transactions made by authorized users and account hold-
        ers.” Determining that no duty under FAPSA or otherwise was
        owed to Arberman in this case, the district court dismissed her case
        with prejudice and entered judgment in favor of PNC.
              Arberman timely appealed.
                        II.      STANDARD OF REVIEW
              We review de novo a district court’s order of dismissal, “ac-
        cepting the allegations in the complaint as true and construing
        them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Mesa Valderrama
USCA11 Case: 23-10182       Document: 25-1       Date Filed: 06/09/2023      Page: 8 of 15

        8                       Opinion of the Court                   23-10182

        v. United States, 417 F.3d 1189, 1194 (11th Cir. 2005). A complaint
        must articulate “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plau-
        sible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
                                  III.   ANALYSIS
               On appeal, Arberman argues that the district court erred by:
        (1) determining that the FAPSA was inapplicable to Arberman
        where a PNC employee had a reasonable suspicion of a violation;
        (2) determining that the Amended Complaint failed to plausibly al-
        lege that Arberman is a “vulnerable adult”; (3) determining that the
        Amended Complaint failed to plausibly allege that Arberman was
        the victim of “exploitation”; and (4) concluding that the Amended
        Complaint failed to plausibly allege that PNC had a baseline duty
        of care to Arberman. 4–5.)
               To state a claim for negligence under Florida law, Arberman
        was required to prove four elements: (1) a duty requiring PNC to
        conform to a certain standard of conduct; (2) a breach of that duty
        by PNC; (3) a causal connection between the breach and an injury
        to Arberman; and (4) loss or damage to Arberman. See Clay Elec.
        Co–op., Inc. v. Johnson, 873 So. 2d 1182, 1185 (Fla. 2003). At issue
        here is the first requirement, PNC’s alleged duty to Arberman. Un-
        der Florida law, “[d]uty exists as a matter of law and is not a factual
        question for [a] jury to decide.” Lamm v. State St. Bank & Tr., 749
        F.3d 938, 947 (11th Cir. 2014) (second alteration in original) (quot-
        ing McCain v. Fla. Power Corp., 593 So. 2d 500, 503 (Fla. 1992)). Flor-
        ida law recognizes four sources of duties of care: statutes and regu-
        lations, judicial interpretations of legislation, judicial decisions, and
USCA11 Case: 23-10182      Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 06/09/2023     Page: 9 of 15

        23-10182               Opinion of the Court                         9

        duties arising from the facts of a particular case. See Curd v. Mosaic
        Fertilizer, LLC, 39 So. 3d 1216, 1227–28 (Fla. 2010), receded from on
        different grounds in Lieupo v. Simon’s Trucking, Inc., 286 So. 3d 143
        (Fla. 2019).
                FAPSA mandates that banks report when one “knows, or
        has reasonable cause to suspect, that a vulnerable adult has been or
        is being abused, neglected, or exploited . . . immediately report
        such knowledge or suspicion to the central abuse hotline.” Fla.
        Stat. § 415.1034(1)(a). FAPSA defines “vulnerable adult” as “a per-
        son 18 years of age or older whose ability to perform the normal
        activities of daily living or to provide for his or her own care or
        protection is impaired due to a mental, emotional, sensory, long-
        term physical, or developmental disability or dysfunction, or brain
        damage, or the infirmities of aging.” Fla. Stat. § 415.102(28).
              As to the definition of “exploitation,” FAPSA states the fol-
        lowing:
              (8) (a) “Exploitation” means a person who:
              1. Stands in a position of trust and confidence with a
              vulnerable adult and knowingly, by deception or in-
              timidation, obtains or uses, or endeavors to obtain or
              use, a vulnerable adult’s funds, assets, or property
              with the intent to temporarily or permanently de-
              prive a vulnerable adult of the use, benefit, or posses-
              sion of the funds, assets, or property for the benefit of
              someone other than the vulnerable adult; or
USCA11 Case: 23-10182     Document: 25-1     Date Filed: 06/09/2023      Page: 10 of 15

        10                    Opinion of the Court                 23-10182

              2. Knows or should know that the vulnerable adult
              lacks the capacity to consent, and obtains or uses, or
              endeavors to obtain or use, the vulnerable adult’s
              funds, assets, or property with the intent to temporar-
              ily or permanently deprive the vulnerable adult of the
              use, benefit, or possession of the funds, assets, or
              property for the benefit of someone other than the
              vulnerable adult.
              (b) “Exploitation” may include, but is not limited to:
              1. Breaches of fiduciary relationships, such as the mis-
              use of a power of attorney or the abuse of guardian-
              ship duties, resulting in the unauthorized appropria-
              tion, sale, or transfer of property;
              2. Unauthorized taking of personal assets;
              3. Misappropriation, misuse, or transfer of moneys
              belonging to a vulnerable adult from a personal or
              joint account; or
              4. Intentional or negligent failure to effectively use a
              vulnerable adult’s income and assets for the necessi-
              ties required for that person’s support and mainte-
              nance.
        Fla. Stat. § 415.102(8). FAPSA also defines “position of trust and
        confidence” with respect to a vulnerable adult as the position of a
        person who:
USCA11 Case: 23-10182      Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 06/09/2023       Page: 11 of 15

        23-10182                Opinion of the Court                         11

               (a) Is a parent, spouse, adult child, or other relative by
               blood or marriage;
               (b) Is a joint tenant or tenant in common;
               (c) Has a legal or fiduciary relationship, including, but
               not limited to, a court-appointed or voluntary guard-
               ian, trustee, attorney, or conservator; or
               (d) Is a caregiver or any other person who has been
               entrusted with or has assumed responsibility for the
               use or management of the vulnerable adult’s funds,
               assets, or property.
        Id. § 415.102(19). “Capacity to consent” is defined as when “a vul-
        nerable adult has sufficient understanding to make and communi-
        cate responsible decisions regarding the vulnerable adult’s person
        or property, including whether or not to accept protective services
        offered by the department.” Id. § 415.102(4).
                In the legislative findings, the Florida Legislature recognized
        “that there are many persons in this state who, because of age or
        disability, are in need of protective services” and that “[s]uch ser-
        vices should allow such an individual the same rights as other citi-
        zens and, at the same time, protect the individual from abuse, ne-
        glect, and exploitation.” Id. at § 415.101.
               Turning to Arberman’s arguments, she first contends that
        FAPSA created a duty owed by PNC once its employee “expressed
        her reasonable suspicion to suspect that Ms. Arberman was being
        exploited.” The Amended Complaint, however, does not
USCA11 Case: 23-10182     Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 06/09/2023     Page: 12 of 15

        12                     Opinion of the Court                 23-10182

        sufficiently allege that an employee had a reasonable suspicion to
        suspect that Arberman was being exploited. The allegations stated
        that Arberman’s “transactions were so inconsistent with Plaintiff’s
        normal banking activity that it raised the suspicion of a bank em-
        ployee who approached Plaintiff to inquire about what was going
        on.” The Amended Complaint also explained that the employee
        who approached Arberman “specifically raised concerns with
        Plaintiff about the out of the ordinary transactions.” The employee
        was “[u]pon information and belief . . . the branch manager at the
        PNC Branch located at 16120 S. Jog Road, Delray Beach, FL 33446.”
        Notably absent from the Amended Complaint is any fact or state-
        ment that would reasonably imply that PNC was aware or should
        have been aware of Arberman’s alleged exploitation resulting from
        her age. The Amended Complaint does not connect the unordi-
        nary transactions with potential exploitation, nor does it state that
        the unnamed PNC employee was even aware of Arberman’s age.
        Without more, Arberman’s complaint fails to allege that FAPSA
        created a duty of care by PNC based on one employee’s inquiry.
        We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in declin-
        ing to recognize this duty.
                Arberman next argues that the district court erred in deter-
        mining that she failed to plausibly plead that she is a “vulnerable
        adult.” We agree with Arberman. She alleged that (1) she was 71
        years old at the time of the fraud; (2) she suffered the cognitive and
        physical decline consistent with that of an aging individual; (3) she
        is less confident in her decision-making abilities; (4) she would not
        have fallen victim to this fraud at a younger age; and (5) her ability
USCA11 Case: 23-10182      Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 06/09/2023      Page: 13 of 15

        23-10182                Opinion of the Court                         13

        to provide for her own care or protection was impaired due to the
        infirmities of aging, namely cognitive decline. As such, she plausi-
        bly alleged that her ability to perform the tasks of daily life had been
        impaired by the infirmities of aging. Far from rephrasing the stat-
        utory language, Arberman pointed to concrete symptoms and is-
        sues related to her advanced age. The Amended Complaint con-
        tains “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
        relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
        678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Accordingly, Arber-
        man plausibly pled that she was a “vulnerable adult” under FAPSA,
        and we conclude that the district court erred in concluding other-
        wise.
               Arberman also argues that the district court erred in finding
        that Arberman failed to sufficiently allege that she was “exploited”
        under FAPSA. Reviewing her Amended Complaint, we conclude
        that Arberman did not sufficiently allege “exploitation” under
        FAPSA. First, Doe did not stand in a “position of trust and confi-
        dence” with Arberman. The statute’s definition of “position of
        trust and confidence” is plain and unambiguous. Fla. Stat.
        § 415.102(19). FAPSA outlines specific instances of such positions,
        and a law enforcement officer does not have the kind of legal and
        fiduciary relationship with Arberman similar to that of a caregiver,
        court-appointed guardian, or attorney. See id. § 415.102(19). Sec-
        ond, Arberman does not allege that Doe knew or should have
        known that Arberman lacked “capacity to consent.” Nowhere in
        the Amended Complaint does Arberman allege that Doe had any
        knowledge of her age, her ability to make decisions, or her
USCA11 Case: 23-10182      Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 06/09/2023     Page: 14 of 15

        14                     Opinion of the Court                  23-10182

        understanding of decisions about her property. Although patently
        fraudulent, Doe’s alleged behavior is not covered by FAPSA’s defi-
        nition of exploitation. We therefore conclude that the district
        court did not err in concluding that Arberman failed to allege “ex-
        ploitation” under FAPSA.
               Finally, Arberman argues that the district court erred in find-
        ing that Arberman failed to plausibly plead that PNC owed her a
        baseline duty of care regardless of FAPSA. Florida law does not
        require banking institutions to investigate transactions. Home Fed.
        Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Hollywood v. Emile, 216 So. 2d 443, 446 (Fla.
        1968). According to Arberman, however, PNC had a responsibility
        to her once the PNC employee detected unusual transactions and
        became suspicious. In support of this contention, Arberman cites
        O’Halloran v. First Union National Bank of Florida, 350 F.3d 1197 (11th
        Cir. 2003). In O’Halloran, we stated that a “bank’s responsibility to
        a depositor may be somewhat heightened when the bank has
        knowledge that a particular individual ostensibly representing the
        depositor instead intends to cause financial injury to the depositor.”
        350 F.3d at 1205. But in this case, all of the transactions, even the
        unordinary ones, were initiated by Arberman herself, not an unau-
        thorized user. The suspicions of one employee without any
        knowledge of a fraudulent scheme cannot save Arberman’s
        Amended Complaint from its defect. She did not sufficiently allege
        that PNC owed her a duty of care to monitor her own transactions.
        We thus conclude that the district court did not err in concluding
        as much.
USCA11 Case: 23-10182     Document: 25-1     Date Filed: 06/09/2023    Page: 15 of 15

        23-10182              Opinion of the Court                       15

               Despite the district court’s error in concluding that Arber-
        man did not sufficiently plead that she was a “vulnerable adult,” we
        affirm the dismissal of her case as Arberman failed to plausibly al-
        lege that she was the victim of “exploitation” under FAPSA and
        that PNC owed a baseline duty of care.
                              IV.    CONCLUSION
             For all these reasons, we affirm the district court’s granting
        PNC’s motion to dismiss.
              AFFIRMED.