The depositor was scammed into depositing approximately $94,000 into various accounts at the bank. He sued the bank, alleging harm caused by the bank’s fraud and negligence. The bank filed a motion to dismiss, and the district court granted the motion with leave to amend the complaint. The depositor then filed an amended complaint alleging negligence, negligent enablement of fraud, breach of contract, violations of state and federal banking laws, and violations of Texas consumer protection laws. The bank again moved to dismiss, and the court granted the motion with prejudice. The depositor appealed. On appeal, the depositor raised three arguments challenging the lower court’s ruling: (1) the bank did owe him a duty, and there was a fiduciary relationship between him and the bank; (2) the depositor had complied with the F.R.C.P. 9(b) pleading standard, and he was a “customer” under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (“DTPA”); and (3) the court improperly dismissed his complaint with prejudice without allowing him to further amend his complaint given that he was a pro se plaintiff.
In Venkatraman v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 25-10969, 2026 WL 1008501, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 10616, (5th Cir. Apr. 14, 2026) (opinion not yet released for publication), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. The court found none of the depositor’s arguments to be persuasive. First, the bank owed no duty of care to the depositor because banks do not owe duties to non-customers under Texas law. Midwestern Cattle Mktg., L.L.C. v. Legend Bank, N.A., 800 F. App'x 239, 247–48 (5th Cir. 2020) (unpublished). The bank owed no duty of care to the depositor “to prevent third parties from carrying out fraudulent transactions using their own accounts.” See Taya Agric. Feed Mill Co. v. Byishimo, No. 22-20239, 2022 WL 17716383, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 34735 at *2 (5th Cir. Dec. 14, 2022). Furthermore, “an ordinary bank-customer relationship does not give rise to fiduciary duties without ‘specific facts showing a special or fiduciary duty.’” Berry v. First Nat’l Bank of Olney, 894 S.W.2d 558, 560 (Tex. App.––Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Additionally, because the depositor did not allege the existence of a breach of contract, the depositor’s breach of contract claim similarly failed. The court held that the depositor’s argument, that he was a longtime customer and received guidance from the bank after he deposited money into the scammer’s account, was unavailing. The depositor did not succeed in the claim that he was a consumer for purposes of the DTPA because he never bought “goods” or “services” as defined by the statute. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.45(1), (2), and (4). Furthermore, the court held that even if the depositor were a consumer, he ultimately failed to comply with Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading requirements. Finally, the Fifth Circuit held that the district court properly dismissed the depositor’s complaint with prejudice. Even if the court construed the depositor’s “amended complaint liberally, none of his claims stated a plausible claim for relief.” See Jones v. Alfred, 353 F. App’x 949, 952 (5th Cir. 2009) (unpublished). The court additionally held that the treatment of the pro se depositor was proper, “[o]ur responsibility to construe pro se filings liberally does not mean that we will invent, out of the whole cloth, novel argument on behalf of a pro se plaintiff.” Id. Therefore, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal with prejudice.
By Olivia Lewis [email protected]
Edited By Deanna Dulske [email protected]
Edited By Landon Womack [email protected]
Edited By Taylor O’Brien [email protected]