Chance World Trading E.C. v. Heritage Bank of Commerce

Ninth Circuit

Chance World Trading E.C. v. Heritage Bank of Commerce

263 F. App'x 630

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided January 16, 2008·No. No. 06-15207·Published

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 The district court correctly concluded that no material issue of fact exists as to Heritage’s knowledge that funds withdrawn from its accounts were being used for an improper purpose.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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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 The district court correctly concluded that no material issue of fact exists as to Heritage’s knowledge that funds withdrawn from its accounts were being used for an improper purpose.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.

Chance World Trading E.C. v. Heritage Bank of Commerce, 263 F. App'x 630 (9th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

263 F. App'x 630 (Chance World Trading E.C. v. Heritage Bank of Commerce) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related