Court Opinion

ID: 9817464
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 04:25:19.641514+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:51.572212
License: Public Domain

RYMER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I don’t think the district court clearly erred in finding it was reasonably foreseeable that the bank would act to protect its customers as it did in the circumstances of this case: the scale of identity theft was huge, and it included, among other things, the social security number of millions of individuals. Nor do I agree with the suggestion that foreseeability is somehow capped by prior responses to unrelated thefts of a different order of magnitude, or by regulations that establish a floor for what a banking institution must do. Instead, I would apply United States v. Pham, 545 F.3d 712, 721 (9th Cir.2008), to the loss calculation here, and affirm.