MEMORANDUM

1.Ni argues we should apply Nevada law to her claims, but she doesn’t explain why applying Nevada law “will'further the interests of [Nevada],” so we apply the law of the forum state, California. See CRS Recovery, Inc. v. Laxton, 600 F.3d 1138, 1142 (9th Cir.2010).

2. The Bank can’t be held liable for Tsai’s actions as respondeat superior because Ni failed to allege facts establishing that Tsai’s conduct was “typical of or broadly incident to” the Bank’s business. See Mary M. v. City of L.A., 54 Cal.3d 202 , 285 Cal.Rptr. 99 , 814 P.2d 1341, 1344 (1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). Though Tsai’s job at the bank may have “set the stage for [the] misconduct,” that is insufficient to impose respondeat superior liability. See Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Mem’l Hosp., 12 Cal.4th 291 , 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 510 , 907 P.2d 358, 367 (1995).

3. The Bank can’t be held liable for Tsai’s actions on an agency theory because even if Tsai was the Bank’s agent, Ni doesn’t allege facts showing Tsai acted within his “actual or ostensible authority” in running the fraudulent scheme. See Van’t Rood v. Cnty. of Santa Clara, 113 Cal.App.4th 549 , 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 746, 765 (2003). Indeed, Ni’s Complaint does not allege that the Bank “intentionally or by want of ordinary care” sanctioned Tsai’s conduct. See Young v. Horizon W., Inc., 220 Cal.App.4th 1122 , 163 Cal.Rptr.3d 704, 713 (2013).

4. Ni’s Complaint also doesn’t allege sufficient facts to support her negligent hiring claim. It contains nothing more than “[tjhreadbare recitals of the elements” of that claim, which “do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 , 129 S.Ct. 1937 , 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.