Age v. Mission Bank

1

TRAVIS AGE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MISSION BANK, Defendant and Respondent.

F086552

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District

June 17, 2024

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County, No BCV-22-100952 David R. Zulfa, Judge.

Wyatt Law and Andrew M. Wyatt for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter &Hampton, Hayley S. Grunvald and Matthew G. Halgren for Defendant and Respondent.

OPINION

POOCHIGIAN, Acting P. J.

This matter stems from a refusal by respondent Mission Bank (Mission) to provide banking services to appellant Travis Age (Age). Age brought a single cause of action for racial discrimination under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, §§ 51-53, et seq.)^[1] (the Unruh Act) against Mission. The trial court granted Mission's demurrer without leave to amend. Appellant contends the trial court erred by concluding that the operative complaint failed to properly allege an Unruh Act racial discrimination claim. We reverse.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND^[2]

Age is an African American taxi driver who had bank accounts at Mission. Age asserted he often recommended Mission to his clients since he had never had any problems with Mission's local branch, and the staff had always been professional and delightful to him. Age recommended Mission to two of his elderly clients, Thea (Thea) and Barbara Harmon (Barbara). Thea is the aunt of Age's wife.

On November 23, 2021, Age took Barabara to Mission. On that day, Carmen Roberts (Roberts) was a manager at Mission, and Age had never interacted with Roberts before. Age was standing at the counter while Barbara was conducting her business because she had requested Age's assistance. In front of everyone, a teller loudly told Age to step away from the counter. Age thought the teller's behavior odd, and he stepped away as directed. Age heard the teller ask Barbara if she was in trouble, if anyone was making her withdraw money, and for what and why did she need so much money. Age felt embarrassed because he felt he was being treated as some sort of suspect. When Barbara finished her business, she asked Age why the teller had been so rude to him.

Age returned to Mission later that day to complain about the teller's conduct. Age began speaking with a second teller about the previous teller's behavior. Roberts then interrupted the conversation and asked if there was a problem. Age explained he did not like how he was treated by the previous teller in front of his client and other bank patrons. Roberts told Age that he could not be at the counter with Barbara because he was not on the account, Barbara was not Age's aunt, and that Age was merely Barabara's taxi driver. Age responded that Roberts was merely Barbara's banker and that he would help her if she asked for his help. Roberts then became angry, started shouting, pacing, and pointing her finger, and ordered that all of Age's accounts be closed. Age said that Roberts could not do that and that if she closed his accounts, Mission would hear from his lawyer. Age asked to speak with another manager who knew Age and with whom he had a good relationship, but Roberts said the other manager was unavailable. Age then left.

Before Age got home, Mission notified his wife that all accounts would be closed in one week. Unbeknownst to Age, Roberts had also deactivated his debit cards.

Still on November 23, 2021, Age's wife and Thea went to Mission so that Age's wife could be added as a beneficiary on Thea's bank account. It was Thea's request that Age's wife be added as a beneficiary. After adding Age's wife as a beneficiary, Age's wife received a call from Mission wanting to know what her relationship was to Thea. Age's wife responded that Thea was her aunt. Thea signed a sworn declaration that she was not being manipulated by Age for money. Thea, who is white, believed that Mission's employees behaved in a racist manner since she believed that she was treated far better than African American customers.

On November 24, 2021, Age called Mission and spoke to Roberts about an account closure letter. Instead of providing an explanation, Roberts merely read the letter back to Age and hung up. Age went to Mission and again asked Roberts about the closure of his accounts. Roberts said the closure was because of what happened the previous day and mentioned Age's last transactions. When Age questioned Roberts about his last transactions, Roberts could provide no detail and stated that she did not need a reason to close his account and could do whatever she wanted.

On November 26, 2021, Age contacted Mission's district manager about Roberts's conduct and treatment. The district manager explained that he was returning from vacation and that he would look into the matter.

On November 29, 2021, Age, his wife, and Thea went to Mission to speak to the district manager. The district manager had not yet looked into Age's complaint. As Age was speaking with the district manager, Roberts ran over, began screaming at Age, and accused him of fraud. Age's wife argued with Roberts. Roberts threatened to call the police and said that she did not need a reason to close accounts. Age, his wife, and Thea were yelling, and Thea's aunt decided to close her accounts because of how Mission was treating her, her niece, and Age. Age's accounts were closed that day. Age alleges that Roberts was the agent of Mission and discriminated against him because of his race by closing all of his accounts without explanation.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On April 21, 2022, Appellant filed his original complaint, which contained a single cause of action for racial discrimination under the Unruh Act.

On January 6, 2023, Mission filed a demurrer.

On January 31, 2023, the trial court held a hearing on Mission's demurrer. The court granted the demurrer with leave to amend.

On February 6, 2023, Appellant filed his first amended complaint (FAC), which again contained a single cause of action for racial discrimination under the Unruh Act.

On April 7, 2023, Mission filed a demurrer to the FAC.

On May 16, 2023, the trial court held a hearing. Appellant's counsel argued that an Unruh Act claim had been properly pled for purposes of the demurrer and indicated that there were no further facts he could add to the FAC.^[3] The court granted Mission's demurrer without leave to amend because Appellant had failed to allege facts sufficient to state an Unruh Act racial discrimination claim.

On May 31, 2023, an order granting the demurrer and dismissing the FAC without leave to amend was filed.

On July 13, 2023, Appellant filed a notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

Parties' Arguments

Age argues the FAC alleges that Mission refused to keep his bank accounts open because of his race. Age argues that the FAC's allegations show that he had never before been treated like he had been on November 23, 2021. Roberts was abusive and unprofessional to Age in front of others and said that she could do whatever she wanted. The only explanation for Roberts's conduct against Age is that she is biased against African Americans. Age argues that the trial court erroneously found that Mission was justified in reporting Age and closing his accounts due to suspected financial elder abuse.

Mission argues that the FAC contains only speculative and conclusory allegations of racial discrimination. Mission contends that no facts actually link adverse conduct to racial discrimination. That is, no facts actually demonstrate that any of the negative treatment that Age experienced had anything to do with race. Because Age conceded that there were no other facts that could be alleged, the trial court properly dismissed the FAC without leave to amend. Alternatively, and even though the trial court did not expressly address the issue, Mission argues that the demurrer can be sustained because Mission is entitled to immunity liability under the Welfare &Institutions Code for reporting suspected financial elder abuse.

Legal Standards

Demurrers

In reviewing a demurrer, appellate courts make a de novo determination of whether the complaint alleges facts that are sufficient to state a cause of action. (Martinez v. City of Clovis (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 193, 253; Galeotti v. International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 3 (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 850, 856.)"' "[A] plaintiff is required only to set forth the essential facts of his case with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficient to acquaint a defendant with the nature, source and extent of his cause of action.'" '" (Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550.) Less particularity is required when a matter is presumptively within the defendant's knowledge, such as the defendant's intent. (Thomas v. Regents of the University of California (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 587, 611 (Thomas).) The reviewing court gives" 'the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.'" (County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 1041; Martinez, at p. 253.) The complaint's factual allegations are assumed to be true, as are the reasonable inferences that may be drawn from those facts. (Miklosy v. Regents of University of California, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 883; Galeotti, at p. 856.) Complaints that allege ultimate facts rather than evidentiary facts are generally sufficient. (See Skopp v. Weaver (1976) 16 Cal.3d 432, 438-439; Thomas, at p. 610; Foster v Sexton (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 998, 1019.) The appellate courts" 'treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but do not assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law.'" (County of Santa Clara, at p. 1041; Martinez, at p. 253.)

The Unruh Act

The ...