Brahim Boumakh v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: December 8, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-04882
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 BRAHIM BOUMAKH, Case No. 25-cv-04882-CRB

9 Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 10 v. RECOMMENDATION; DISMISSING CASE 11 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., 12 Defendant.

13 Plaintiff Brahim Boumakh, proceeding pro se, brought an action on behalf of 14 himself and his companies (Digital-Wireless Telecom, Inc., Nano-TechPower, Inc., and 15 Digital-Trade U.S.A. (Digital UNI)) against Wells Fargo Bank. Compl. (dkt. 1). 16 Boumakh seeks claims for (1) breach of fiduciary duty, (2) negligence and gross 17 negligence, (3) fraud, (4) violation of consumer protection laws, such as the Electronic 18 Fund Transfer Act (“EFTA”) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), and (5) 19 intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. Id. 5–7 (¶¶ 10–14). His 20 allegations stem from Wells Fargo closing his business accounts, which he claims affected 21 major contracts and federally supported grant initiatives. Id. 4 (¶ 6–10). Boumakh alleges 22 he is entitled to $100 million in actual damages for financial losses, $500 million in 23 punitive damages, $2 million in reputational damages, and injunctive relief to reinstate his 24 accounts. Id. 7–8 (¶¶ 15–16). 25 Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler screened the complaint and identified a host of 26 deficiencies that warranted dismissal. Screening Order (dkt. 11). Judge Beeler noted the 27 complaint’s lack of factual allegations to support Boumakh’s claims, including facts 1 his complaint to remedy the deficiencies, he filed an amended complaint. YouTube 2 Complaint (dkt. 15). But this new complaint was brought on the behalf of a new plaintiff 3 (Hizb El-Hirak, a Peaceful Political Organization), with new claims (defamation, breach of 4 contract, and tortious interference with political communications), and against a new 5 defendant (YouTube, LLC). See id. After a review of this second complaint, Judge Beeler 6 issued a Report and Recommendation to dismiss the case. R&R (dkt. 18). Judge Beeler 7 reasoned that, even if the amended complaint was related to the original, there was a lack 8 of subject-matter jurisdiction over all the claims against YouTube due to a lack of federal 9 law at issue and diversity. Id. at 2. And the prior deficiencies in the original complaint 10 remained unaddressed. Id. Boumakh did not file an objection to the Report and 11 Recommendation. 12 The Court now adopts Judge Beeler’s Report and Recommendation and dismisses 13 the action. 14 Judge Beeler recommended dismissal due to a lack of facts to support venue. 15 Screening Order at 4. The Court agrees. The original complaint only vaguely alleged 16 what happened regarding Boumakh’s business accounts and is completely silent as to 17 where the events happened. See Compl. at 4 (¶¶ 6–10). Further, there is some confusion 18 as to where Boumakh resides. His complaint included a Virginia address, see id. at 10, 19 while his address on the docket is in Santa Monica, CA, see Docket. Regardless, neither 20 address is in the Northern District of California. Accordingly, Boumakh does not provide 21 any information that clarifies whether this District is the appropriate venue. 22 Judge Beeler also noted the complaint fails to allege sufficient facts for its claims. 23 Screening Order at 9. The Court is in accord with Judge Beeler. Boumakh alleges two 24 federal claims—under the EFTA and the FCRA. The EFTA has a host of steps to identify 25 a qualifying error under the statute, such as investigation and consumer reporting, but the 26 complaint does not mention any of them or what Wells Fargo did to violate the statute. 27 See In re Bank of Am. Cal. Unemployment Benefits Litig., No. 21MD2992-GPC(MSB), 1 scheme); see also Compl. at 4 (¶¶ 6–10). The complaint likewise fails to raise allegations 2 supporting an FCRA claim. The FCRA also has specific steps for consumer reporting that, 3 if not followed, may give rise to a private right of action for both negligent and willful 4 noncompliance. Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir. 5 2009). None of this is mentioned in the complaint. See Compl. at 4 (¶¶ 6–10). 6 Judge Beeler also determined that there were two issues with Boumakh’s state law 7 claims: a potential lack of diversity jurisdiction and a failure to state claims. Screening 8 Order at 8–9. The Court agrees. For diversity jurisdiction, the main issue with the 9 complaint—aside from the lack of clarity into Boumakh’s residence—is the amount-in- 10 controversy. On paper, Boumakh seeks over $500 million in damages, which would easily 11 satisfy the amount-in-controversy threshold of $75,000. Compl. 7–8 (¶¶ 15–16). But the 12 Court doubts this number was alleged in good faith as Boumakh offers no allegation to 13 support it outside of conclusory statements. See Kamath v. PayPal, Inc., No. 5:23-cv- 14 03636-EJD, 2023 WL 9233496, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2023) (citing Dart Cherokee 15 Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 87 (2014)). Consequently, without 16 federal claims, Boumakh fails to show why this Court would have diversity jurisdiction. 17 As to the state law claims themselves, the complaint fails to state them. As Judge 18 Beeler identifies, the relationship between a bank and its depositor is founded in contract, 19 meaning it is not fiduciary in character. See Screening Order at 8; see also Simi Mgmt. 20 Corp. v. Bank of Am., N.A., 930 F. Supp. 2d 1082, 1100 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (“A bank has 21 limited duties to its customers. The relationship between the two is not fiduciary, but 22 rather is contractual in nature.”). This dooms Boumakh’s fiduciary duty claim. Similarly, 23 Boumakh’s negligence claim fails because banks do not generally owe borrowers a duty of 24 care and there is no allegation there was a special relationship to create such a duty. See, 25 e.g., Nymark v. Heart Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 231 Cal. App. 3d 1089, 1095–96 (1991). 26 Boumakh also fails to allege any elements of tortious interference with prospective 27 economic advantage, such as the existence of an economic relationship between the 1 || O’Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc., 58 F. Supp. 3d 989, 996 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Lastly, the 2 || complaint is devoid of any allegation regarding the elements of fraud, let alone alleging 3 them with particularity. See Lazar v. Super. Ct., 12 Cal. 4th 631, 638 (1996); Fed. R. Civ. 4 || P. 9(b). 5 Moreover, Judge Beeler correctly determined that Boumakh’s amended complaint 6 || fails to show this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over his claims against YouTube. 7 || R&R at 2. None of the claims is federal. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. And by representing that he 8 || resides in Santa Monica and that YouTube is headquartered in San Bruno, CA, Boumakh 9 || himself demonstrates why there is no diversity of citizenship. See YouTube Complaint at 10 || 9917, 19; see also Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996) (requiring complete 11 || diversity). 12 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES Boumakh’s complaint. He may || refile without prejudice in another forum. C 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: December 8, 2025 K yo CHARLES R. BREYER 16 United States District Judge

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28