{"id":455,"date":"2026-01-15T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-15T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=455"},"modified":"2026-01-15T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-15T12:00:00","slug":"sundahl-comerica-direct-express-elder-abuse-efta-fraudulent-transfers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=455","title":{"rendered":"Sundahl v. Comerica Bank \u2014 S.D. Cal. Dismisses Elder Abuse and Electronic Funds Transfer Act Claims Over $6,815 Direct Express Card Fraud"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Sundahl v. Comerica Bank<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Southern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-15<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
3:25-cv-01473<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Electronic Funds Transfer Act, California Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, Social Security Direct Express card, financial elder abuse, EFTA error resolution<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Mark Sundahl, an elder Californian, maintained a bank account with Comerica Bank and Conduent State and Local Solutions, the operator of the federal government’s Direct Express debit-card program for Social Security recipients. In November 2024, approximately $6,815 in fraudulent transactions were made on his account. He immediately disputed the loss with the defendants. They initially said they would reimburse him but never did, and continued to refuse to refund the money. He alleged that they did not perform a reasonable investigation.<\/p>\n

He sued in San Diego Superior Court for financial elder abuse under California’s Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (Welf. & Inst. Code \u00a7 15600 et seq.) and for violations of the federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. \u00a7 1693 et seq.). The defendants removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The court granted the motion to dismiss on both claims.<\/p>\n

On financial elder abuse under \u00a7 15610.30(a)(1) (direct taking) and (a)(2) (assisting), California law and Southern District of California precedent (Bortz v. JPMorgan Chase<\/em>; Das v. Bank of America<\/em>) require allegations that the bank had actual knowledge of the wrongful conduct or assisted with knowledge of a third party’s wrongful conduct. The complaint contained no facts about how the transactions were fraudulent, who initiated them, or how the defendants knew the transactions were unauthorized. The bank’s processing of transactions and its later refusal to refund \u2014 without more \u2014 does not establish actual knowledge of fraud. Without that knowledge, neither the direct-taking nor assisting theory was adequately pled.<\/p>\n

On the EFTA claim, federal law requires a consumer who experiences an electronic-fund-transfer error to notify the financial institution within 60 days of receiving the documentation reflecting the error, and the notice must reasonably identify the account, the suspected error, the type and amount, and (where possible) the reason the consumer believes there was an error. The court found Sundahl’s complaint did not adequately allege that he provided the required notice \u2014 he alleged only that he disputed the loss but did not allege that he reported the transfers as fraudulent, described the transactions, or stated that he had not participated in them. Without sufficient pleading of the EFTA’s notice requirements, the bank’s obligation to investigate and respond under the EFTA was not triggered.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n