Neilson

Neilson v. Union Bank of California, N.A.

Good Law
290 F. Supp. 2d 1101·2003 WL 22533553·2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20017
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaOctober 20, 2003CV02-06942MMMCWXCalifornia26,209 words

Opinion

Opinion

Morrow, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT COMERICA’S MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT;

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT IMPERIAL’S MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT;

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA, N.A.’S MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT;

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT BANK OF ORANGE COUNTY’S MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT CATHERINE MARY LEIDER’S MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA, N.A.’S MOTION TO STRIKE

This class action seeks damages from Union Bank of California, Comerica Bank of California, Imperial Management, Inc., and Bank of Orange County, each of which is alleged to have conspired with Reed Slatkin in effecting a Ponzi scheme that defrauded hundreds of investors out of hundreds of millions of dollars. Plaintiffs allege that these defendants knowingly participated in and facilitated the Ponzi scheme by providing Slatkin with credit, allowing Slatkin to commingle personal and investor funds, and lending their name and prestige to his…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.