1

2

3

4

5

6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 PEARL H. JACOBOWITZ, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-03999-MEMF (PD) 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND 12 v. RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 U.S. BANK, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 Pursuant to

, the Court has reviewed the pleadings, the records on file, and 18 the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”). Further, the 19 Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which objections have 20 been made. 21 The Report recommends that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Corrected First 22 Amended Complaint be granted in part and denied in part, with leave to amend the pleading. 23 (ECF No. 51.) The parties’ objections to the Report (ECF Nos. 53, 55) do not merit any change 24 to the Report’s findings or recommendations. 25 Defendants object that their Motion to Dismiss should be granted as to the claim for a 26 breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. (ECF No. 53 at 4-5.) The Court 27 agrees with the Report that Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged the elements of the claim. A reasonable 28 factfinder could determine that the Deposit Account Agreement is ambiguous as to “exactly 1 which methods [U.S. Bank National Association (‘USBNA’)] offers for withdrawal or whether 2 there are specific amount-based limits on those methods.” (ECF No. 51 at 13.) Because the 3 ambiguity must be interpreted against USBNA, which drafted the agreement, a reasonable 4 factfinder could determine that USBNA breached its implied covenant when it did not provide 5 Plaintiffs with a method for withdrawing their account funds in cash. (Id.) 6 Defendants object that their Motion to Dismiss should be granted as to the claim for 7 violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law. (ECF No. 53 at 5-7.) The Court agrees with 8 the Report that Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged the elements of the claim. “Similar to the cause of 9 action for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, a reasonable factfinder could 10 reasonably determine that Defendants’ conduct in not providing Plaintiffs a method for 11 withdrawing the account funds in cash was unfair.” (ECF No. 51 at 15-16.) 12 Defendants object that Plaintiff should not be granted leave to amend any dismissed 13 claims or dismissed parties because further amendment would be futile. (ECF No. 53 at 7-8.) 14 The Court agrees with the Report that it is not clear that amendment would be futile. (ECF No. 15 51 at 18-19.) Moreover, “[t]he rule favoring liberality in amendments to pleadings is particularly 16 important for the pro se litigant.” Crowley v. Bannister,

(9th Cir. 2013) 17 (citation omitted). The Court agrees with the Report that Plaintiffs should have an opportunity to 18 amend their claims and the standing of Dakota Dusty Zeigerman-Jacobowitz. 19 Plaintiffs object that they have stated claims for breach of contract and promissory 20 estoppel and have adequately alleged standing. (ECF No. 55 at 2, 11, 17.) The Court agrees 21 with the Report that the current allegations are insufficient. As to the breach of contract claim, 22 Plaintiffs’ allegations are insufficient because, under the explicit terms of the applicable policy, 23 Defendants were only required to provide Plaintiffs with the ability to withdraw funds from their 24 account, not to provide Plaintiffs with the ability to withdraw cash from their account. (ECF No. 25 51 at 9; ECF No. 27-1 at 12-13.) As to the promissory estoppel claim, Plaintiffs did not allege 26 that they were promised the funds in cash, rather than told the funds could not be provided in 27 cash. (ECF No. 51 at 10; ECF No. 27-1 at 4-5.) As to standing, Plaintiffs did not allege that 28 Dakota Dusty Zeigerman-Jacobowitz was the intended beneficiary of the funds. (ECF No. 51 at 1 || 17-18; ECF No. 27-1 at 3.) In any event, Plaintiffs seek an opportunity to amend their allegations 2 || (ECF No. 55 at 10, 16, 18), which is exactly what the Report recommends. Plaintiff should 3 |] renew their allegations in a Second Amended Complaint. 4 ORDER 5 It is ordered that: 6 A. The Report and Recommendation is accepted; 7 B. Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Sur-Reply is granted; 8 C. Plaintiffs’ Requests for Judicial Notice are denied; and 9 D. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part, as follows: 10 1. The following claims from the FAC are dismissed with leave to 11 amend: 12 a) breach of contract; 13 b) promissory estoppel; 14 c) violation of the EFAA; 15 d) violation of the ECOA; 16 e) violation of the Patriot Act; and 17 f) intentional infliction of emotional distress; 18 2. The following party is dismissed from the FAC with leave to 19 amend to establish standing: 20 a) Dakota Dusty Zeigerman-Jacobowitz; and 21 3. The Motion to Dismiss is denied as to the following claims: a) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and

33 b) violation of California’s unfair competition law.

35 Dated: September 17, 2025

36 MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG

United States District Judge

28