Rustam v. Wells Fargo Bank CA2/7

Filed 6/16/15 Rustam v. Wells Fargo Bank CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

MOHAMMED RUSTAM, Individually B254445 and as Trustee, etc., et al., (Los Angeles County Plaintiffs and Appellants, Super. Ct. No. BC478839)

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEALS from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Malcolm H. Mackey, Judge. As to Mohammed Rustam, the judgment is affirmed. As to Mustafa Rustam, the appeal is dismissed. Obagi & Stodder and Zein E. Obagi, Jr., for Plaintiffs and Appellants, Mohammed Rustam and Mustafa Rustam. Barton, Klugman & Oetting and Tod V. Beebe for Defendant and Respondent, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ______________

Mohammed Rustam appeals the judgment entered after the superior court granted the petition of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. to confirm an arbitration award and denied his request to vacate the award. Rustam contends the arbitration ruling was procured by fraud and must be vacated because Wells Fargo concealed critical evidence during the arbitration that, if produced, would have assisted him in proving his claims. We affirm the judgment against Rustam. We dismiss an appeal filed by Rustam’s brother, Mustafa Rustam, for lack of standing. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. The Underlying Lawsuit and Petition To Compel Arbitration In February 2012 Mohammed Rustam sued Wells Fargo alleging that, on separate occasions in February 2011, it had negligently permitted unauthorized and fraudulent withdrawals from bank accounts he owned or controlled as trustee of an irrevocable trust created by his brother. Rustam alleged Wells Fargo’s negligence caused more than $370,000 in losses, exclusive of interest. The two brothers also asserted claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress based upon allegations a Wells Fargo investigator had falsely accused them of participating in a scheme to defraud the bank. Wells Fargo moved for an order compelling arbitration pursuant to the arbitration clause in the consumer account agreement. Although Mustafa Rustam was not a signatory to the arbitration agreement, Wells Fargo argued that, as the settlor of one of the accounts (the trust account), he was a third party beneficiary to the agreement and his negligence and emotional distress claims were inextricably linked with his brother’s. The court granted the motion, ordered the parties to arbitrate each of their claims and stayed the action pending the outcome of the arbitration. 2. The Arbitration Ruling At some point prior to the arbitration, Mustafa Rustam stipulated that he would voluntarily dismiss his claims; accordingly, only Mohammed Rustam’s claims were arbitrated. After a full evidentiary hearing, the arbitrator found Rustam had presented