Andrew J. Perez, et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, et al, No. 2:2016cv01597 - Document 40 (C.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOLLOWING ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT JPMORGAN CHASE BANK N.A.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT signed by Judge Manuel L. Real. Chase has demonstrated that there is no genuine issue o f material fact pertaining to the running of the applicable statute of limitation. For their part, Plaintiffs have not sustained their burden of producing competent evidence to establish a genuine dispute as to any material fact and cannot rely on mere allegations or denials in the pleadings. Therefore, as the moving party Chase is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. (gk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Andrew J. Perez, et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, et al Doc. 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 ANDREW J. PEREZ; IRENE E. Case No. 2:16-CV-01597-R-RAO PEREZ; and QUALITY SWEEPING 13 SERVICE, 14 15 Hon. Manuel L. Real Courtroom 8 Plaintiffs, STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOLLOWING ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT JPMORGAN CHASE BANK N.A.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT v. 16 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK; JOHN 17 18 DOE and DOES 1-10, inclusive Defendants. 19 Action Filed: MSJ Granted: 20 December 15, 2015 November 8, 2016 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOLLOWING ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Dockets.Justia.com 1 STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND 2 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 3 Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”) filed its Motion for 4 Summary Judgment (Dkt. 18) on September 22, 2016 (“Motion”). After having 5 been thoroughly briefed by both parties, this Court took this Motion under 6 submission on November 3, 2016. Dkt. 35. The Court issued its Order granting 7 defendant’s Motion on November 8, 2016, Dkt. 37. I. 8 9 A. THE PARTIES TO THIS ACTION 1. 10 FINDINGS OF FACT Plaintiffs Andrew J. Perez and Irene E. Perez are California citizens 11 (Dkt. 1, p. 5) and were the owners of Chase Accounts 1700, 7980 and 9370. Dkt. 12 1, p. 16 and Dkt. No. 18-3, pp. 92-153 (ownership of Account 1700). Dkt. 1, p. 18 13 (ownership of Accounts 7980 and 9370); Dkt. 18-3, pp. 59-90 (ownership of 14 Account 9370), and Dkt. 18-4, pp. 90-101 (ownership of Account 7980). 2. 15 Plaintiff Quality Sweeping Service, Inc. is a California domiciliary. 16 Dkt. 1, p. 6. It is a corporation duly organized under California law, with its 17 principal place of business in California. Dkt. 1, p. 6. Plaintiff Quality Sweeping 18 Service, Inc. was the owner of Chase Account 9730. Dkt. 1, p. 19 and Dkt. 18-4, 19 pp. 3-88. 3. 20 Chase is an Ohio domiciliary. It is a national banking association, 21 established and organized under the laws of the United States of America and has 22 designated its main office to be located in Columbus, Ohio. Dkt. 1, p. 6. 23 B. PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT AND REMOVAL TO FEDERAL 24 COURT 25 4. On December 9, 2015, Plaintiffs Andrew J. Perez, Irene E. Perez and 26 Quality Sweeping Service, Inc. (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed their Complaint for 27 Breach of Contract against Chase in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Dkt. 28 2 STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOLLOWING ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 1, pp. 9-21. Plaintiffs assert three causes of action for breach of contract against 2 Chase. Id., at pp. 16-20. 5. 3 Plaintiffs allege that through fraudulent checks and ATM and 4 electronic transfers by unknown persons, numerous unauthorized withdrawals 5 occurred on their accounts. Dkt. 1, pp. 14-20. Plaintiffs allege that Chase refused 6 to refund the remaining funds in their accounts when each was closed. This, they 7 allege, was in breach of Chase’s promise to “protect monies deposited by 8 plaintiffs.” Id., at p. 15. Plaintiffs’ Complaint does not, however, identify which 9 transactions were ‘unauthorized.’ Plaintiffs’ Complaint does not specify the dates 10 when the allegedly unauthorized transactions occurred. 6. 11 On March 8, 2016, Chase removed the lawsuit to the U.S. District 12 Court for the Central District of California. Dkt. 1. On March 11, 2016, Chase 13 answered Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Dkt. 6. 14 C. THE SPECIFIC TRANSACTIONS PLAINTIFFS ALLEGE TO BE 15 UNAUTHORIZED 16 7. Beginning on or about May 31, 2016, Chase began conducting 17 discovery from Plaintiffs to specifically identify those transactions claimed to be 18 unauthorized. Dkt. 18-3, pp. 3-22. 19 8. On or about July 28, 2016 and responsive to that discovery (Dkt.18-3, 20 pp. 24-28 (re Andrew J. Perez discovery responses), pp. 30-34 (re Irene E. Perez 21 discovery responses) and pp. 36-40 (re Quality Sweeping Service discovery 22 responses)), Plaintiffs identified the allegedly unauthorized transactions, which 23 occurred during the time period beginning in October 2012 and running through 24 October 2013. Dkt. 18-3, pp. 42-44 (claims of unauthorized transactions re 25 Account 1700), Dkt. 18-3, pp. 46-47 (claims of unauthorized transactions re 26 Account 7980), pp. 49-53 (claims of unauthorized transactions re Account 9730), 27 and Dkt. 18-3, pp. 55-57 (claims of unauthorized transactions re Account 9370). 28 3 STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOLLOWING ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 9. Each transaction on Account 9370 which Plaintiffs allege was 2 unauthorized appears on a monthly bank statement between October 2012 and 3 October 2013 that Chase made available to Plaintiffs immediately following the 4 date of the questioned transaction. Dkt. 18-1, pp. 14-15 (statements made 5 available), Dkt. 18-3, pp. 59-90 (monthly bank statements) and Dkt. 18-3, pp. 55- 6 57 (specific identification of all alleged unauthorized transactions in Account 7 9370). 8 10. Each transaction on Account 1700 which Plaintiffs allege was 9 unauthorized appears on a monthly bank statement between November 2012 and 10 October 2013 that Chase made available to Plaintiffs immediately following the 11 date of the questioned transaction. Dkt. 18-1, p. 15 (statements made available), 12 Dkt. 18-3, pp. 92-153 (monthly bank statements) and Dkt. 18-3, pp. 42-44 (specific 13 identification of all alleged unauthorized transactions in Account 1700). 14 11. Each transaction on Account 9730 which Plaintiffs allege was 15 unauthorized appears on a monthly bank statement between October 2012 and 16 November 2013 that Chase made available to Plaintiffs immediately following the 17 date of the questioned transaction. Dkt. 18-1, pp. 15-16 (statements made 18 available), Dkt. 18-4, pp. 3-88 (monthly bank statements) and Dkt. 18-3, pp. 42-44 19 (specific identification of all alleged unauthorized transactions in Account 9730). 20 12. Each transaction on Account 7980 which Plaintiffs allege was 21 unauthorized appears on a monthly bank statement between October 2012 and 22 November 2012 that Chase made available to Plaintiffs immediately following the 23 date of the questioned transaction. Dkt. 18-3, p. 16 (statements made available), 24 Dkt. 18-4, pp.90-101 (monthly bank statements), and Dkt. 18-3, pp. 46-47 (specific 25 identification of all alleged unauthorized transactions in Account 7980). 26 13. Plaintiffs concede receiving all monthly statements in 2012 and 2013 27 for each of the four accounts in question. Dkt. 24, ¶ 3, p. 3. Plaintiffs further 28 concede that those statements identify each of the individual transactions which 4 STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOLLOWING ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 Chase paid, which Plaintiffs now claim in context of this lawsuit were not 2 authorized by them. Id. 3 14. III. 4 5 Plaintiffs did not file their lawsuit until December 9, 2015. 1. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims against Chase 6 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Removal of this action was proper pursuant to 7 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. 8 9 2. Because the allegedly unauthorized transactions include in-branch withdrawals, telephone transfers, ATM withdrawals, internet transfers and other 10 transactions, two different statutes are applicable here, namely: (i) California Code 11 of Civil Procedure § 340(c); and (ii) Title 15 U.S.C. § 1693m(g). 12 3. California Code of Civil Procedure § 340(c) sets a one-year statute of 13 limitations for an action “by a depositor against a bank for the payment of a forged 14 or raised check, or a check that bears a forged or unauthorized endorsement . . . .” 15 Id. The statute of limitations accrues as to each transaction when it is paid and is 16 subsequently reported on the following monthly statement. See Edward Fineman 17 Co. v. Superior Court, 66 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1117-1118 (1998). 18 4. There is no dispute that Chase paid each allegedly unauthorized paper 19 transaction and that Chase reported each allegedly unauthorized paper transaction 20 on the following monthly bank statement for each account in question. Thus, 21 there is no dispute that the one-year limitation period for each one of Plaintiffs’ 22 claims of an alleged unauthorized paper transaction accrued during the period from 23 October 2012 through October 2013. Accordingly, all of Plaintiffs’ claims arising 24 from fraudulent checks or other fraudulent paper transactions expired before 25 Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on December 9, 2015. Therefore, this Court 26 concludes that all such claims are barred by the statute of limitations, California 27 Code of Civil Procedure § 340(c). 28 5 STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOLLOWING ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 5. Plaintiffs’ remaining claims are governed by 15 U.S.C. § 1693m(g) of 2 the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (“EFTA”). The EFTA governs actions arising 3 from electronic transfers and other payments accomplished electronically, 4 including ATM withdrawals and internet transfers. 5 6. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1693m(g), actions brought under the EFTA 6 are also subject to a one-year statute of limitation. There is no dispute that each of 7 the allegedly unauthorized electronic transactions similarly occurred during the 8 period from October 2012 through October 2013. There is no dispute that during 9 this time period monthly statements identifying each of the allegedly unauthorized 10 electronic transaction were timely made available to and received by Plaintiffs. 11 Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ remaining claims arising from alleged fraudulent ATM 12 withdrawals and electronic transfers likewise expired before this action 13 commenced and are thus barred by the EFTA statute of limitations. IV. 14 15 1. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, Chase has demonstrated that there is no 16 genuine issue of material fact pertaining to the running of the applicable statute of 17 limitation. For their part, Plaintiffs have not sustained their burden of producing 18 competent evidence to establish a genuine dispute as to any material fact and 19 cannot rely on mere allegations or denials in the pleadings. 20 21 2. Therefore, as the moving party Chase is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. 22 23 24 25 Dated: November 28, 2016 _______________________________ Hon. Manuel L. Real United States District Judge 26 27 28 6 STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOLLOWING ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 2 Respectfully submitted, 3 4 BARTON, KLUGMAN & OETTING LLP 5 /s/ Dated: November 15, 2016 By: _______________________________ Terry L. Higham, APLC 7 Attorneys for Defendant JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. 8 A National Banking Association 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOLLOWING ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT W:\Working\beebe\JPMorgan Chase\Perez\PLDG\Federal\MSJ Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.5.docx-11/14/16
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
