Venkatraman v. BOA

── Venkatraman v. BOA ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: April 14, 2026 Category: Private Civil Diversity Case: 25-10969 Document: 37-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/14/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit FILED No. 25-10969 April 14, 2026 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk Venky Venkatraman, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Bank of America, N.A., Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:24-CV-2821 ______________________________ Before Jones, Duncan, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * In January 2023 Venky Venkatraman was persuaded by scammers to deposit money orders and cashier’s checks amounting to $94,345 into various Bank of America accounts. He sued Bank of America, N.A. (“BOA”) in Texas state court in October 2024, alleging that he was harmed by BOA’s fraud and negligence. BOA removed the case to federal district _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-10969 Document: 37-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/14/2026 No. 25-10969 court in the Northern District of Texas. BOA moved to dismiss, and the district court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to file an amended complaint within twenty-eight days of the dismissal. Venkatraman filed an amended complaint alleging negligence, negligent enablement of fraud, breach of contract, and violations of federal and state banking laws and Texas consumer protection laws. BOA again moved to dismiss, and the district court granted the motion with prejudice. Venkatraman timely appealed. On appeal, Venkatraman argues that the district court erred in dismissing his claims. Specifically, he argues the district court improperly held that BOA owed him no duty and had no fiduciary relationship with him despite his longstanding customer relationship with the bank. He also argues that the district court improperly dismissed his fraud-related claims for failure to satisfy the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) pleading standard, that his breach of contract claim failed to allege a contract with adequate specificity, and that he was not a “consumer” for purposes of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (“DTPA”). He also argues the district court abused its discretion by dismissing his claims with prejudice without allowing his request for further amendment, particularly given that he was a pro se plaintiff, and failed to apply the liberal pleading standard for pro se complaints. None of Venkatraman’s arguments are persuasive. First, the district court correctly held that BOA owed no duty of care to Venkatraman 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, at *2 (5th Cir. Dec. 14, 2022) (unpublished) (“[B]anks 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) (rejecting argument that bank has a general duty to prevent fraud