Hekmat v. MidFirst Bank CA2/8

Filed 2/25/22 Hekmat v. MidFirst Bank CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

CYRUS HEKMAT, B305801

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SC126852) v.

MIDFIRST BANK,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Craig D. Karlan, Judge. Affirmed.

Ervin Cohen & Jessup and David N. Tarlow for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Hinshaw & Culbertson and Michael A. S. Newman for Defendant and Respondent.

_____________________________

Plaintiff and appellant Cyrus Hekmat sued his cousin Jonathan Mahboubi, Candice Hassid, and MidFirst Bank, among others, alleging claims arising from a loan plaintiff made to Mr. Mahboubi. Plaintiff alleged Mr. Mahboubi made misrepresentations to induce him to make the loan. Ms. Hassid, who worked for a division of MidFirst Bank, is Mr. Mahboubi’s fiancée. She set up two wire transfers by which plaintiff made the loans to Mr. Mahboubi. Plaintiff alleged Ms. Hassid knew about her fiancé’s fraud when she made the wire transfers. Ms. Hassid also told plaintiff she could assist him in obtaining a line of credit from the bank, but she never did. Plaintiff alleged the bank had respondeat superior liability for Ms. Hassid’s tortious conduct. The bank did not lend any funds to plaintiff or Mr. Mahboubi. Plaintiff opened a bank account at the division where Ms. Hassid worked, through which he made the wire transfers to Mr. Mahboubi. MidFirst Bank had no other creditor/lender relationship with plaintiff. The trial court sustained the bank’s demurrer without leave to amend, entered a judgment of dismissal, and plaintiff appealed. We affirm. FACTS Plaintiff sued his cousin Jonathan Mahboubi, the cousin’s fiancée Candice Hassid, and MidFirst Bank, which is the only respondent in this appeal. After many rounds of pleading and demurrers (where the court rejected plaintiff’s theory that the bank was vicariously liable for Ms. Hassid’s alleged torts), plaintiff’s fifth amended complaint stated only one cause of action against the bank for negligence. The fifth amended complaint alleged that on September 17, 2016, Mr. Mahboubi asked plaintiff for a short-term loan of