Gorstein

Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment.

I concur in the result. I agree that a bank is not required under 42 U.S.C. § 407 (a) to examine the source of all funds in a general account in order to determine whether the funds include any amounts derived from social security payments and then shield those funds from the effects of a court order that is generally applicable to the account.

MEMORANDUM

The relevant facts are well known to the parties and are not repeated here. The district court did not err in dismissing Appellant’s second cause of action for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 407 (a). Although Social Security benefits are protected by statute from claims by a beneficiary’s creditors unless the beneficiary consents, see *10 42 U.S.C. § 407 (a); Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Bd., 409 U.S. 413, 416-17 , 93 S.Ct. 590 , 34 L.Ed.2d 608 (1973); Bennett v. Arkansas, 485 U.S. 395, 396-97 , 108 S.Ct. 1204 , 99 L.Ed.2d 455 (1988); Crawford v. Gould, 56 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir.1995), only a party that has exercised independent control over the benefits is a proper defendant. The terms “execution, levy, attachment, or garnishment [are] legal terms of art [that] refer to formal procedures by which one person gains a degree of control over property otherwise subject to the control of another, and generally involve some form of judicial authorization.” Washington State Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs. v. Guardianship Estate of Keffeler, 537 U.S. 371, 383 , 123 S.Ct. 1017 , 154 L.Ed.2d 972 (2003). Appellant alleged no facts suggesting that Appellee itself participated in…