Douglas G. Gray, an individual; ARLENE GRAY, an individual v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., a Corporation

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DOUGLAS G. GRAY, an individual;
ARLENE GRAY, an individual,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., a
Corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 23-55318
D.C. No.
2:22-cv-03090-DSF-PVC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 25, 2024**
Pasadena, California
Before: RAWLINSON, LEE, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Douglas and Arlene Gray are an elderly couple who unfortunately fell victim
to an online scam. Arlene Gray ended up transferring almost $70,000 from her
Chase Bank checking account to scammers who falsely claimed to be Amazon
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAR 29 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
customer service representatives. The Grays sued Chase for (1) assisting in financial
abuse under California Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 15610.30 and 15657.5, and
(2) negligence under California law. After granting the Grays an opportunity to
amend their complaint, the district court dismissed the Grays’ lawsuit with prejudice.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The Grays fail to state a claim for assisting financial abuse under § 15610.30.1
Under the California Court of Appeal decision in Das v. Bank of America, N.A., a
“bank may be found to have ‘assisted’ the financial abuse only if it knew of the third
party’s wrongful conduct.” 186 Cal. App. 4th 727, 745 (2010). Plaintiffs do not
plead facts establishing that Chase had actual knowledge of or intentionally assisted
in carrying out the fraudulent scheme. This claim thus fails.
The Grays fail to state a claim for negligence. In California, “banks have no
duty to monitor withdrawals made by authorized parties in an authorized manner.”
Law Firm of Fox & Fox v. Chase Bank, N.A., 95 Cal. App. 5th 182, 201 (2023)
(citing Kurtz-Ahlers, LLC v. Bank of Am., N.A., 48 Cal. App. 5th 952, 956 (2020)).
And the contractual relationship between a bank and its depositors “does not involve
1 We decline to certify this question to the California Supreme Court. The
California appellate court in Das has resolved this issue and subsequent California
courts of appeal have followed Das’s reasoning. There is no convincing evidence
that the California Supreme Court would overrule Das. See In re Kirkland, 915 F.2d
1236, 1239 (9th Cir. 1990) (“[A] federal court is obligated to follow the decisions of
the state’s intermediate courts . . . in the absence of convincing evidence that the
highest court of the state would decide differently.” (cleaned up)).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
any implied duty to supervise account activity or to inquire into the purpose for
which the funds are being used.” Kurtz-Ahlers, 48 Cal. App. 5th at 956 (quoting
Chazen v. Centennial Bank, 61 Cal. App. 4th. 532, 537 (1998) (internal quotation
marks omitted)). Chase thus owed no duty to the Grays to inquire into why Mrs.
Gray was transferring money to Thailand.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --