May

FACTS

According to the first amended complaint, the only document other than the notice of appeal they included in their appendix, appellants fell victim to a real estate scam perpetrated by defendants other than BofA. These defendants persuaded appellants to wire $130,000 to a BofA escrow account in the name of Golden Gate Escrow as the purchase price of a house in San Bernardino. Golden Gate Escrow allegedly does not exist, and the people behind the scam absconded with appellants’ money. Appellants sued 14 defendants, including BofA. The other defendants were sued for several causes of action based on fraud. BofA was sued only for negligence. The negligence theory was that BofA should have checked out Golden Gate Escrow’s legitimacy, and its failure to do so breached a duty of care to appellants. BofA evidently demurred to the first amended complaint.1 The trial court sustained BofA’s demurrer and dismissed BofA from the lawsuit.2 The grounds for dismissal were that appellants were not BofA’s customers and BofA therefore owed no duty to them.

The moving, opposition, and reply papers are not part of the record on appeal. The appellants’ appendix included neither…