Starla Pacini v. Bank of America

Good Law
583 F. App'x 777
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 24, 201412-57038, 12-57039California214 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Starla Pacini, Maria Sanchez, Alba Pe-nagos, and Hector Penagos (collectively, Plaintiffs) appeal from the dismissal of a nationwide putative class action alleging that Bank of America, N.A. (BOA) and Intersections Insurance Services, Inc. (IIS) enrolled. Plaintiffs and other BOA customers in the Smart-Step Accidental Death Insurance Program and deducted automatic payments from their accounts without express and informed written consent.

Although the district court dismissed the case on the basis of comity, “[w]e may affirm the district court’s judgment on any ground supported by the record.” In re Zynga Privacy Litig., 750 F.3d 1098, 1103 (9th Cir.2014) (citation omitted). We affirm the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ complaint because the complaint fails to state a plausible claim for relief by asserting the specifics of the insurance enrollment and automatic payment deductions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 , 129 S.Ct. 1937 , 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); see also Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 , 127 S.Ct. 1955 , 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). The complaint also fails to plead fraud-based claims with the required particularity, thereby defeating…

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.