Sorour v. PNC Bank, N.A.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 13, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00036
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 SALLY SOROUR, Case No. 25-cv-00036-CRB

9 Plaintiff,

ORDER DISMISSING FEDERAL 10 v. CLAIM AND REMANDING STATE CLAIMS 11 PNC BANK, N.A., et al., 12 Defendants.

13 Plaintiff Sally Sorour sued Defendants PNC Bank, Wells Fargo, and Bank of 14 America in California state court for allegedly failing to properly investigate a transaction 15 she made that was the result of a fraudulent phone call she had received asking her for 16 money. Compl. (dkt. 1-1) at 3–6. Plaintiff brought breach of contract claims against each 17 defendant and further brought claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. 18 Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code 19 § 1770; and the federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1693f. Id. 20 Defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting federal question jurisdiction 21 based on Sorour’s bringing of a cause of action under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. 22 Not. of Removal (dkt. 1) ¶¶ 6–7; see also 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(a). Defendants further 23 assert supplemental jurisdiction with respect to the state-law claims. Not. of Removal ¶ 8; 24 see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Defendants then moved to dismiss all of Sorour’s claims 25 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. PNC Bank 26 MTD (dkt. 4); Wells Fargo Bank MTD (dkt. 5); Bank of America MTD (dkt. 6). Sorour 27 opposes Defendants’ motions and seeks severance and remand of her state-law claims 1 The Court finds the matter suitable for resolution without oral argument, see Local 2 Civ. R. 7-1(b), and vacates the hearing set for March 21, 2025. Starting with Sorour’s sole 3 claim based on federal law—her Electronic Funds Transfer Act claim—Sorour asserts that 4 Defendants failed to investigate her “unauthorized transactions” within the statutory 5 timeframe. Compl. ¶ 6 (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1693f(a)). The Electronic Funds Transfer Act 6 defines an “unauthorized electronic fund transfer” as “an electronic fund transfer from a 7 consumer’s account initiated by a person other than the consumer without actual authority 8 to initiate such transfer and from which the consumer receives no benefit.” 15 U.S.C. 9 § 1693a(12) (emphasis added); 12 C.F.R. § 1005.2(m); see also id. § 1693f(f) (listing the 10 “errors” that banks are required to investigate, which include unauthorized transfers, 11 incorrect transfers, omissions in bank statements, and computational errors). Sorour, 12 however, alleges that she withdrew funds herself. See Compl. at 3, 8. So Sorour fails to 13 state a claim under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. See Sanchez v. Navy Fed. Credit 14 Union, 2023 WL 6370235, at *22–23 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2023) (“The plain meaning of 15 ‘unauthorized’ … excludes transactions where the consumer chooses to initiate a transfer 16 to another individual, even if that person turns out to be a fraudster.”). Any amendment 17 would be futile. See Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 296–97 (9th Cir. 1990) 18 (amendments must be “consistent with the challenged pleading” and not “contradict[] any 19 of the allegations of [the] original complaint” (citation omitted)). The Court therefore 20 dismisses Sorour’s Electronic Funds Transfer Act claim without leave to amend. 21 Sorour’s remaining claims are all state-law claims, and neither party asserts an 22 independent basis for federal jurisdiction over them. Because this action is in its early 23 stages and Sorour’s state-law claims involve distinct elements from her federal claim, the 24 Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claims. See 28 25 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also Parra v. PacifiCare of Ariz., Inc., 715 F.3d 1146, 1156 (9th 26 Cir. 2013). Those claims are dismissed without prejudice. See Lopez v. City of Santa 27 Ana, 698 F. App’x 401, 402 (9th Cir. 2017). This moots Sorour’s remand motion, though 1 For the foregoing reasons, Sorour’s Electronic Funds Transfer Act claim is 2 || DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and her state law claims are DISMISSED 3 || WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. : k 5 Dated: February 13, 2025 xo CHARLES R. BREYER 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 € 13

(16

© 17

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28