1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 Case No.: 18-CV-2735 W (BGS) SASA INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, 14 LLC, et al., ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 15 Plaintiffs, MOTIONS TO DISMISS [DOCS. 37, 44] WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 16 v. 17 HEMANT CHHATRALA, et al., 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 Pending before the Court is Defendant Orange Coast Title Company’s motion to 22 dismiss, and Defendant Bank of America, N.A.’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a 23 claim. Plaintiffs oppose the motions. 24 The Court decides these matters on the papers submitted and without oral 25 argument. Civil L. R. 7.1(d.1). For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS 26 Defendants’ motions [Docs. 37, 44] WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND and ORDERS 27 Defendants Orange Coast Title Company and Bank of America, N.A. DISMISSED. 28 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 This lawsuit arises from Plaintiffs’ attempts to invest in entities owned, operated or 3 controlled by Defendant Chhatrala Investments, LLC. (First Amended Comp. (“FAC”) 4 [Doc. 35] ¶ 12.) Relevant to the pending motions are two wire transfers Plaintiffs made 5 as part of those intended investments. The first occurred in September 2013, when 6 Plaintiffs wired $200,000.00 to Defendant Orange Coast Title Company (“OCTC”), who 7 was acting as the escrow agent for Chhatrala Investments, LLC. (Id. ¶ 16.) The money 8 was “for the purpose of the Plaintiffs obtaining an ownership interest in a hotel owned by 9 Chhatrala Investments, LLC.” (Id.) A few weeks later, Plaintiffs wired $450,000.00 to 10 an account with Defendant Bank of America (“BofA”) for the purchase of an interest in 11 one of Chhatrala Investment, LLC’s entities. (Id. ¶ 13.) According to the FAC, the 12 account was “managed and operated” by Defendant Jenish Patel (“JP”). (Id. ¶ 21.) 13 Because Plaintiffs were not provided with any documents confirming the “use and 14 placement of any of the wired funds,” Plaintiffs filed a petition for pre-suit discovery. 15 (FAC ¶¶ 17, 18.) The petition was granted and Plaintiffs deposed Chhatrala Investments, 16 LLC and Defendant H. Chhatrala. (Id. ¶ 19.) Plaintiffs learned the funds wired to BofA 17 were placed into “an account that had a historical negative balance and multiple notices 18 of insufficient funds,” and BofA made no inquiry into the intended use of the funds. (Id. 19 ¶¶ 18–20.) Additionally, within five days of BofA’s receipt of the funds, “approximately 20 $635,000.00 was either withdrawn or transferred to other accounts from the Chhatrala 21 Investments, LLC account.” (Id. ¶ 20.) 22 On December 4, 2018, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against nine defendants. 23 (Compl. [Doc. 1].) Three defendants, including BofA and OCTC, moved to dismiss 24 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On October 31, 2019, this Court granted 25 the motions with leave to amend. (See Dismissal Order [Doc. 31].) 26 On November 18, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the FAC. (See FAC.) The FAC asserts a 27 single cause of action for an accounting against OCTC and BofA, who now move to 28 dismiss the FAC under Rule 12(b)(6). 1 II. LEGAL STANDARD 2 A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the legal 3 sufficiency of the complaint. See Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 4 1484 (9th Cir. 1995). Without sufficient facts to move beyond speculation and support a 5 cognizable legal theory, a complaint cannot survive a 12(b)(6) motion. Great Minds v. 6 Office Depot, Inc., 945 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 2019). 7 Factual allegations, which are accepted as true and viewed in the light most 8 favorable to the non-moving party, are not required to be detailed. Malibu Textiles, Inc. 9 v. Label Lane Int’l Inc., 922 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2019). Instead, the complaint must 10 contain “a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief ....” Fed. 11 R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) “requires more than labels and 12 conclusions, [however,] a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will 13 not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although courts are not 14 required to accept legal conclusions, the complaint must be “plausible on its face” 15 through sufficient factual allegations. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 16 Leave to amend should be freely granted when justice so requires. See Fed. R. 17 Civ. P. 15(a). However, where an amendment would be futile, a district court may 18 dismiss a pleading without leave. Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc., 710 19 F.3d 946, 956 (9th Cir. 2013). 20 21 III. DISCUSSION 22 In California, a cause of action for an accounting is a proceeding in equity whereby 23 the court will adjudicate the amount due to the plaintiff. See Fredianelli v. Jenkins, 931 24 F.Supp. 2d 1001, 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (quoting Verdier v. Super. Ct. in and for City & 25 Cty of S.F., 88 Cal. App. 2d 572, 530 (1948)). An action for accounting is appropriate 26 when (1) there is a relationship between the plaintiff and defendant that requires an 27 accounting, or the “accounts are so complicated that an ordinary legal action demanding a 28 fixed sum is impracticable,” and (2) there is some balance due to the plaintiff that can 1 “only be ascertained by an accounting.” See Teselle v. McLoughlin, 173 Cal. App. 4th 2 156, 179 (2009); Quinteros v. Aurora Loan Servs., 740 F.Supp. 2d 1163, 1170 (E.D. Cal. 3 2010). Under California law, the relationship required for an accounting does not have to 4 be a fiduciary relationship. Teselle, 173 Cal.App.4th at 179. But there is no right to an 5 accounting if there is no misconduct by the defendant. Union Bank v. Super. Ct. of L.A., 6 31 Cal. App. 4th 573, 593–594 (1995) (finding no right to a cause of action because 7 plaintiff admitted the defendant did not engage in misconduct). 8 9 A. Defendant Orange Coast Title Company 10 Defendant OCTC argues the FAC fails to state an accounting cause of action for 11 the following three reasons: (1) the FAC fails to plead a relationship between Plaintiffs 12 and OCTC; (2) there are no allegations of wrongdoing by OCTC; and (3) the amount in 13 dispute is identifiable and does not require an accounting. (OCTC P&A [Doc. 37-1] 3:9– 14 16, 4:19–5:16.) 15 The FAC alleges OCTC acted as the escrow agent for “one of the Chhatrala 16 Investments, LLC entities for purpose of the Plaintiffs obtaining an ownership interest in 17 a hotel owned by Chhatrala Investments, LLC.” (FAC ¶ 16.) Based on this allegation, 18 OCTC argues that “at best, the alleged relationship would have been between OCTC and 19 ‘one of the Chhatrala Investments LLC entities’” and not between Plaintiffs and OCTC. 20 (OCTC Reply [Doc. 45] at 4.) 21 “An escrow holder is an agent and fiduciary of the parties to the escrow.” Summit 22 Financial Holdings, Ltd. V. Continental Lawyers Title Co., 27 Cal. 4th 705, 711 (2002).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 Case No.: 18-CV-2735 W (BGS) SASA INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, 14 LLC, et al., ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 15 Plaintiffs, MOTIONS TO DISMISS [DOCS. 37, 44] WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 16 v. 17 HEMANT CHHATRALA, et al., 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 Pending before the Court is Defendant Orange Coast Title Company’s motion to 22 dismiss, and Defendant Bank of America, N.A.’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a 23 claim. Plaintiffs oppose the motions. 24 The Court decides these matters on the papers submitted and without oral 25 argument. Civil L. R. 7.1(d.1). For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS 26 Defendants’ motions [Docs. 37, 44] WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND and ORDERS 27 Defendants Orange Coast Title Company and Bank of America, N.A. DISMISSED. 28 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 This lawsuit arises from Plaintiffs’ attempts to invest in entities owned, operated or 3 controlled by Defendant Chhatrala Investments, LLC. (First Amended Comp. (“FAC”) 4 [Doc. 35] ¶ 12.) Relevant to the pending motions are two wire transfers Plaintiffs made 5 as part of those intended investments. The first occurred in September 2013, when 6 Plaintiffs wired $200,000.00 to Defendant Orange Coast Title Company (“OCTC”), who 7 was acting as the escrow agent for Chhatrala Investments, LLC. (Id. ¶ 16.) The money 8 was “for the purpose of the Plaintiffs obtaining an ownership interest in a hotel owned by 9 Chhatrala Investments, LLC.” (Id.) A few weeks later, Plaintiffs wired $450,000.00 to 10 an account with Defendant Bank of America (“BofA”) for the purchase of an interest in 11 one of Chhatrala Investment, LLC’s entities. (Id. ¶ 13.) According to the FAC, the 12 account was “managed and operated” by Defendant Jenish Patel (“JP”). (Id. ¶ 21.) 13 Because Plaintiffs were not provided with any documents confirming the “use and 14 placement of any of the wired funds,” Plaintiffs filed a petition for pre-suit discovery. 15 (FAC ¶¶ 17, 18.) The petition was granted and Plaintiffs deposed Chhatrala Investments, 16 LLC and Defendant H. Chhatrala. (Id. ¶ 19.) Plaintiffs learned the funds wired to BofA 17 were placed into “an account that had a historical negative balance and multiple notices 18 of insufficient funds,” and BofA made no inquiry into the intended use of the funds. (Id. 19 ¶¶ 18–20.) Additionally, within five days of BofA’s receipt of the funds, “approximately 20 $635,000.00 was either withdrawn or transferred to other accounts from the Chhatrala 21 Investments, LLC account.” (Id. ¶ 20.) 22 On December 4, 2018, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against nine defendants. 23 (Compl. [Doc. 1].) Three defendants, including BofA and OCTC, moved to dismiss 24 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On October 31, 2019, this Court granted 25 the motions with leave to amend. (See Dismissal Order [Doc. 31].) 26 On November 18, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the FAC. (See FAC.) The FAC asserts a 27 single cause of action for an accounting against OCTC and BofA, who now move to 28 dismiss the FAC under Rule 12(b)(6). 1 II. LEGAL STANDARD 2 A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the legal 3 sufficiency of the complaint. See Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 4 1484 (9th Cir. 1995). Without sufficient facts to move beyond speculation and support a 5 cognizable legal theory, a complaint cannot survive a 12(b)(6) motion. Great Minds v. 6 Office Depot, Inc., 945 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 2019). 7 Factual allegations, which are accepted as true and viewed in the light most 8 favorable to the non-moving party, are not required to be detailed. Malibu Textiles, Inc. 9 v. Label Lane Int’l Inc., 922 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2019). Instead, the complaint must 10 contain “a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief ....” Fed. 11 R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) “requires more than labels and 12 conclusions, [however,] a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will 13 not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although courts are not 14 required to accept legal conclusions, the complaint must be “plausible on its face” 15 through sufficient factual allegations. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 16 Leave to amend should be freely granted when justice so requires. See Fed. R. 17 Civ. P. 15(a). However, where an amendment would be futile, a district court may 18 dismiss a pleading without leave. Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc., 710 19 F.3d 946, 956 (9th Cir. 2013). 20 21 III. DISCUSSION 22 In California, a cause of action for an accounting is a proceeding in equity whereby 23 the court will adjudicate the amount due to the plaintiff. See Fredianelli v. Jenkins, 931 24 F.Supp. 2d 1001, 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (quoting Verdier v. Super. Ct. in and for City & 25 Cty of S.F., 88 Cal. App. 2d 572, 530 (1948)). An action for accounting is appropriate 26 when (1) there is a relationship between the plaintiff and defendant that requires an 27 accounting, or the “accounts are so complicated that an ordinary legal action demanding a 28 fixed sum is impracticable,” and (2) there is some balance due to the plaintiff that can 1 “only be ascertained by an accounting.” See Teselle v. McLoughlin, 173 Cal. App. 4th 2 156, 179 (2009); Quinteros v. Aurora Loan Servs., 740 F.Supp. 2d 1163, 1170 (E.D. Cal. 3 2010). Under California law, the relationship required for an accounting does not have to 4 be a fiduciary relationship. Teselle, 173 Cal.App.4th at 179. But there is no right to an 5 accounting if there is no misconduct by the defendant. Union Bank v. Super. Ct. of L.A., 6 31 Cal. App. 4th 573, 593–594 (1995) (finding no right to a cause of action because 7 plaintiff admitted the defendant did not engage in misconduct). 8 9 A. Defendant Orange Coast Title Company 10 Defendant OCTC argues the FAC fails to state an accounting cause of action for 11 the following three reasons: (1) the FAC fails to plead a relationship between Plaintiffs 12 and OCTC; (2) there are no allegations of wrongdoing by OCTC; and (3) the amount in 13 dispute is identifiable and does not require an accounting. (OCTC P&A [Doc. 37-1] 3:9– 14 16, 4:19–5:16.) 15 The FAC alleges OCTC acted as the escrow agent for “one of the Chhatrala 16 Investments, LLC entities for purpose of the Plaintiffs obtaining an ownership interest in 17 a hotel owned by Chhatrala Investments, LLC.” (FAC ¶ 16.) Based on this allegation, 18 OCTC argues that “at best, the alleged relationship would have been between OCTC and 19 ‘one of the Chhatrala Investments LLC entities’” and not between Plaintiffs and OCTC. 20 (OCTC Reply [Doc. 45] at 4.) 21 “An escrow holder is an agent and fiduciary of the parties to the escrow.” Summit 22 Financial Holdings, Ltd. V. Continental Lawyers Title Co., 27 Cal. 4th 705, 711 (2002). 23 Although Plaintiffs’ allegation is not a model of clarity, construing it in the light most 24 favorable to the non-moving party, it is reasonable to infer that Plaintiffs were a party to 25 the escrow because the wire transfer to OCTC was for Plaintiffs’ purchase of an interest 26 in the hotel. Accordingly, the FAC sufficiently alleges a relationship between Plaintiffs 27 and OCTC. 28 1 Next, OCTC contends Plaintiffs’ cause of action is insufficient because “Plaintiffs 2 fail to make any substantive allegations of wrongdoing by OCTC.” (OCTC P&A 3:9– 3 16.) In response, Plaintiffs argue OCTC owed them a fiduciary duty as an escrow holder 4 because OCTC knew it received Plaintiffs’ funds. (Opp’n to OCTC [Doc. 43] 2:24–28.) 5 The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs’ argument. 6 “The duty of an escrow holder is to comply strictly with the instructions of his 7 principal.” Axley v. Transamerica Title Ins. Co., 88 Cal. App. 3d 1, 8 (1978) (citations 8 omitted). Thus, an escrow holder’s agency relationship is limited, rather than general 9 because “the obligations of the escrow holder to each party are strictly in accordance with 10 the escrow instructions given by that party.’” Id. (citations omitted). However, while the 11 escrow holder has the duty to exercise reasonable skill and ordinary diligence, it “‘has no 12 general duty to police the affairs of its depositors.’” Id. at 9 (citations omitted). Thus, 13 whether OCTC is in breach depends on if the FAC alleges it failed to follow the parties’ 14 escrow instructions. 15 Here, the FAC alleges Plaintiffs wired $200,000 to OCTC in order to obtain an 16 ownership interest in a hotel. (FAC ¶ 16.) As part of this allegation, Plaintiffs cite a 17 Charles Schwab wire-transfer authorization form that is attached to the FAC as an 18 exhibit. (Id. ¶ 16, Ex. C.) But the wire-transfer authorization contains no instructions 19 and is silent regarding the intended purpose of the $200,000 wire transfer. (See Id. Ex. 20 C.) Nor does the FAC identify any instructions provided to OCTC or that anyone 21 notified it of the purpose of the funds. Accordingly, the FAC fails to allege OCTC 22 breached any obligations owed to Plaintiffs. 23 Finally, OCTC argues Plaintiffs’ accounting cause of action fails because the 24 amount in dispute is a certain and identifiable amount. (OCTC P&A 4:27–28.) Plaintiffs 25 respond that an accounting is necessary so they can “determine what portion of the 26 $200,000 was used for the investment in the hotel.” (Opp’n to OCTC 4:7–8.) But the 27 FAC alleges the $200,000 was “not accounted for as having been invested on Plaintiffs’ 28 behalf in the hotel.” (FAC ¶ 16.) This inartfully pled allegation suggests none of the 1 funds were used to purchase an interest for Plaintiffs and, therefore, the amount at 2 issue—i.e., Plaintiffs’ alleged damages—is certain and identifiable: $200,000. 3 Regardless, a more fundamental problem exists. The FAC admits the $200,000 4 wired to OCTC was withdrawn by Defendant JP. (FAC ¶ 22.) If the “defendant owes no 5 money to plaintiffs and d[oes] not deprive them of any moneys . . . as a matter of law [an] 6 accounting cause of action must be dismissed.” Union Bank, 31 Cal. App. 4th at 594. 7 Because OCTC does not have Plaintiffs’ funds, the FAC cannot state an accounting cause 8 of action against OCTC. 9 10 B. Defendant Bank of America 11 Defendant BofA raises similar concerns as OCTC, claiming there is no relationship 12 between BofA and Plaintiffs, and the amount at issue is ascertainable without an 13 accounting. (BofA P&A [Doc. 44] 4:8–22.) The Court agrees. 14 The FAC alleges Plaintiffs wired $450,000.00 to Chhatrala Investments, LLC 15 through BofA, and Plaintiffs frequently asked the bank about the handling of the funds. 16 (FAC ¶¶ 13, 15.) Plaintiffs later learned the BofA account that received their money had 17 a “historical negative balance and multiple notices of insufficient funds just prior to 18 receipt of Plaintiffs’ funds.” (Id. ¶ 20.) Given the “size of the wire transfer and the 19 history of the account,” Plaintiffs complain that BofA “made no inquiry as to the 20 intended use of the funds,” and five days later, $635,000.00 was withdrawn from the 21 account. (Id.) 22 Under California law, banks are not required to police fiduciary accounts. See Cal. 23 Fin. Code § 1450; see also Desert Bermuda Properties v. Union Bank, 265 Cal App. 2d 24 146, 152 (1968); Chazen v. Centennial Bank, 61 Cal. App. 4th 532, 539 (1998) (“Under 25 this system favoring expedited handling of funds transfers, a bank cannot be expected to 26 track transactions in fiduciary accounts or to intervene in suspicious activities.”). It 27 follows that BofA could not be expected to police Plaintiffs’ funds, and therefore 28 1 || Plaintiffs have not alleged either a relationship or misconduct against BofA. See Union 2 || Bank, 31 Cal. App. 4th at 593-94. 3 Furthermore, just as with OCTC, the FAC identifies the amount at issue with 4 ||respect to BofA. Plaintiffs allege they wired $450,000 to a BofA account for Chhatrala 5 ||Investments, LLC. (FAC 4 13.) Plaintiffs further allege that “JP withdrew Plaintiffs’ 6 || funds for purposes unrelated to Plaintiffs’ intended investments.” (/d. 422; Opp’n to 7 || BofA [Doc. 51] 3:16—-17.) Assuming the allegations are true, BofA no longer has 8 || Plaintiffs’ funds and the amount at issue is certain and identifiable—the $450,000 wired 9 BofA that JP withdrew. 10 11 C. Leave to Amend 12 Denying leave to amend is appropriate where such leave to amend would be futile. 13 ||See Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996); Plumeau v. Sch. 14 || Dist. No. 40 Cty. Of Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432, 439 (9th Cir. 1997). Based on the 15 || deficiencies identified above, particularly with the amount at issue being certain and 16 identifiable, the Court finds leave to amend would be futile. 17 18 CONCLUSION & ORDER 19 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions [Docs. 37, 20 ||44] WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND and ORDERS Defendant Orange Coast Title 21 ||Company and Defendant Bank of America, N.A. DISMISSED. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: February 19, 2020 \ 2 25 Hn. 1 omas J. Whelan 6 United States District Judge 27 28