Aponte v. Bank of America CA1/5

Filed 8/11/14 Aponte v. Bank of America CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

JOHN APONTE, Plaintiff and Appellant, A140805 v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. CGC1313000) Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff John Aponte (Aponte), representing himself, appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendant Bank of America, N.A. (Bank). (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c.) We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND The record on appeal contains the motion for summary judgment and supporting declaration filed by Bank, but does not contain a copy of Aponte’s complaint or his opposition to the motion for summary judgment, which is referenced in the register of actions for the case.1 Accordingly, our rendition of the facts and procedural history is taken from the summary judgment motion itself. Aponte is a state prison inmate. He sued Bank for negligence and an unspecified intentional tort relating to an inmate trust account allegedly held by Bank. Bank filed a

1 Aponte titled his opposition “Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Vacating Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.”

1

motion for summary judgment on the ground it was not the holder of the account and had no relationship to the account. In support of its motion for summary judgment, Bank presented the declaration of Brian Blake, a vice president and senior operations consultant employed by Bank, stating: (1) he was familiar with the electronic record system used by Bank to create and store information pertaining to customer accounts; (2) the records were created and maintained in the regular course of business and were relied upon by Bank in the ordinary course of its business; (3) he had searched Bank’s electronic record-keeping system using the names “John Rafael Aponte,” “John Aponte,” “John Laponte,” and “John Rafael Laponte,” and had also searched using Aponte’s Social Security number and the account number referenced by Aponte; (4) based on this search, he had determined no account held by Bank is associated with that information; (5) he had reviewed checks attached to Aponte’s complaint which contained a Bank stamp endorsement indicating the payees were Bank customers, but those stamps did not indicate Aponte had an account at Bank; and (6) Bank did not have any relationship with inmate trust accounts. The trial court granted the motion and entered judgment in favor of Bank.