Judgment: KAZ MANIWA VS. BANK OF AMERICA

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                POAC

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Aug-13-2003 8:52 am

Case Number: CSM-09-829102
Filing Date: Aug-13-2009 8:51
Juke Box: 001 Image: 02584620
JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM

KAZ MANIWA VS. BANK OF AMERICA

001002584620

Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.~, “~
SPERIOR COURT OF CALIFO! ya,

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO . E BD :
400 MCALLISTER STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, co Celtty Sunerior Court

faco

KAZ MANIWA Small G AUG. .§,2008

PLAINTIFF(S) G

ORD PARK-LL Clerk |
BY: ‘tA : .

Case Number: CSM-09-829 1029 2"

Vs.

ANK OF AMERICA
DEFENDANT(S) JUDGMENT

This cause came on regularly for proceeding on d eae 2 4, 2004 in Department Se Y before the

Honorable Beadtey P. . Maples : Gammissianer/Judge Pro Tem
Xi Defendant shall pay Plaintiff: __.

in the amount of;
$ Oo PRINCIPAL $__- INTEREST §, i 2 COSTS
Terms/other arders_ See @ thedeo

(I) Plaintiff shall pay defendant(s)

in the amount oft
$s PRINCIPAL $ INTEREST S$. COSTS

Terms/other orders

Enforcement of the judgment is automatically pestpened for 30 days.

(1 Plaintiff testified that defendant is not in the military service of the United
States as defined in Section 101 of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Relief Act of 1940, and not entitled to the benefits of th
Act.

1 This judgment results from a motor vehicle accident on a California highway and was caused by the judgment
debtor's operation of a motor vehicle. If the judgment is not paid, you may apply to have the judgment debtor's
driver's license suspended.

L) Payments are to be made at the rate of §. per month, beginning on (date):

and on the day of each month thereafter until paid in full. If any payment is missed, the entire
balance becomes due immediately.

Submitted on; une 29 204

Rendered on: dy 22 2009
P thle.

Rein “JUDGE PRO TEM OF THE SUPERIOR co
Bradley g taplyy\ “Y

While the signature card signed by each plaintiff included special instructions stating that
“client requests that all owners must be present for box opening,” such provision is
inconsistent with the express term in the Safe Deposit Rules & Regulations stating that
control of the property in a box rented by two or more people shall rest in each of them
individually. In this case, the court finds the Safe Deposit Rules & Regulations to be
controlling and that entrance to the safe deposit box was not inappropriate when given to
just one owner. This position is bolstered by the fact that plaintiff Maniwa successfully
sought to open the safe deposit box without plaintiff Nguyen’s presence based on the
representation that plaintiff Nguyen had consented to the unilateral access. In other
words, plaintiffs, by their actions, consented to the terms of the Safe Deposit Rules &
Regulations, despite their initial request otherwise.

Further, the court notes that the signature accompanying the May 17, 2007 opening of the
safe deposit box appears to be that of plaintiff Nguyen, Tt therefore appears that, to the
extent any items were removed from the box, they may have been removed by one of the
people specifically authorized to gain entrance to the box. Additionally, the court is
troubled by the fact that, despite claiming that $53,000 in cash and jewelry has been
stolen from them, neither plaintiff contacted the police nor made any report to any law
enforcement agency related to the theft.

For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that the defendant did not inappropriately grant

access to the safe deposit box and, if it had, plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of
proof as to the contents of the box.

#GAqLO1