Greene v. Bank of America
216 Cal. App. 4th 454
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Greene received two settlement checks from State Farm drawn on State Farm's BOA account and tried to cash them at a Bank of America branch; the larger check ($7,250.97) required supervisor approval and could not be cashed, while the smaller check ($40) could be cashed.
- Supervisor Reyes could not verify the larger check's signature and told Greene to deposit or open an account; Greene insisted the checks were preapproved.
- Branch manager Casasola called the police after Greene, while waiting, allegedly threatened to blow up the bank; Greene was outside the bank when police arrived and he was arrested.
- Greene was charged with Penal Code section 422 (making criminal threats) and acquitted after a jury trial.
- Greene sued Bank of America, Casasola, and Reyes for malicious prosecution; Reyes obtained judgment via a special motion to strike; the trial court granted the strike against Bank and Casasola, which Greene appeals.
- Court affirming in part and reversing in part held that Reyes’s judgment stands, while the Bank and Casasola’s judgment was reversed; action on appeal was certified for publication
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Anti-Money Laundering Act provides immunity. | Greene argues the Act does not immunize a bank for false reports. | Bank/Casasola contend Act immunizes disclosures; argued public policy supports immunity. | Act immunity not applicable to this non-transaction disclosure; no clear preemption for malicious prosecution here. |
| Whether plaintiff can prove malicious prosecution prima facie. | Greene shows Casasola knowingly lied about threats. | Bank/Casasola assert lack of proof of knowing misstatement and probable cause. | A prima facie showing exists; a jury could find deliberate false reporting by Casasola. |
| Whether there was probable cause for the arrest. | Undetermined; facts show potential misperception by bank officials. | Defendants argue reasonable suspicion of crime based on raised voice and threats. | If Casasola lied, probable cause fails; conflicts in evidence for jury to resolve. |
| Whether malice can be shown from deliberate false reporting. | Casasola's false report demonstrates improper motive. | Defendants contend no proof of malice beyond mere dislike of plaintiff. | Malice can be inferred from deliberate lies; sufficient for triable issue. |
| Whether the trial court properly denied/qualified the SLAPP strike against Bank and Casasola. | Strike was inappropriate given triable issues of malice and lack of probable cause. | Special motion to strike properly applied to eliminate meritless claims. | Strike improper against Bank and Casasola; judgment reversed; Reyes’s judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Overstock.com, Inc. v. Gradient Analytics, Inc., 151 Cal.App.4th 688 (Cal. App. Dist. 4th 2007) (plaintiff's evidence accepted as true for SLAPP analysis; minimal merit standard)
- Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc., 29 Cal.4th 53 (Cal. 2003) (probability of prevailing standard for SLAPP; admissible evidence framework)
- Brill Media Co., LLC v. TCW Group, Inc., 132 Cal.App.4th 324 (Cal. App. 2005) (initial burden on defendant to show protected activity)
- Centers v. Dollar Markets, 99 Cal.App.2d 534 (Cal. App. 1950) (liability for malicious prosecution without signing complaint; active instrumental causation)
- Ecker v. Raging Waters Group, Inc., 87 Cal.App.4th 1320 (Cal. App. 2001) (probable cause analysis; objectively reasonable belief of crime)
- Roberts v. McAfee, Inc., 660 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 2011) (employer probable cause notwithstanding misrepresentation by others)
- Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (S. Ct. 2009) (federal preemption context; state police powers not lightly superseded)
- Lopez v. First Union Nat'l Bank, 129 F.3d 1186 (11th Cir. 1997) (disclosure of financial records under Act; safe harbors)
- Stoutt v. Banco Popular de P.R., 320 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2003) (act immunizes disclosures to law enforcement in certain contexts)
- Nevin v. Citibank, N.A., 107 F.Supp.2d 333 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (bank communications to third parties not always immunized)
- Coronado v. BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc., 222 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2000) (immunity limitations in response to grand jury subpoenas)