Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	15. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES *Commitments* At December 31, 2015 and 2014, the Bank had commitments to extend credit of approximately $744.0 million and $694.4 million, respectively, and obligations under letters of credit of $35.1 million and $34.6 million, respectively. Commitments to extend credit are agreements to lend to customers, provided there is no violation of any condition established in the contract. Commitments generally have fixed expiration dates or other termination clauses and may require payment of a fee. Commitments are generally variable rate, and many of these commitments are expected to expire without being drawn upon. As such, the total commitment amounts do not necessarily represent future cash requirements. The Bank uses the same credit underwriting policies in granting or accepting such commitments or contingent obligations as it does for on-balance-sheet instruments, which consist of evaluating customers’ creditworthiness individually. The Bank had a reserve for unfunded loan commitments of $7.2 million as of December 31, 2015 and $7.7 million as of December 31, 2014 included in other liabilities. Standby letters of credit are conditional commitments issued by the Bank to guarantee the financial performance of a customer to a third party. Those guarantees are primarily issued to support private borrowing or purchase arrangements. The credit risk involved in issuing letters of credit is essentially the same as that involved in extending loan facilities to customers. When deemed necessary, the Bank holds appropriate collateral supporting those commitments. Management does not anticipate any material losses as a result of these transactions. At December 31, 2015, the Bank has available lines of credit totaling $3.23 billion from correspondent banks, FHLB and Federal Reserve Bank of which $2.84 billion were secured. *Other Contingencies* Certain lawsuits and claims arising in the ordinary course of business have been filed or are pending against us or our affiliates, including but not limited to actions involving employment, wage-hour and labor law claims, lender liability claims, trust and estate administration claims, and consumer and privacy claims, some of which may be styled as “class action” or representative cases. Where appropriate, we establish reserves in accordance with FASB guidance over loss contingencies (ASC 450). The outcome of litigation and other legal and regulatory matters is inherently uncertain, however, and it is possible that one or more of the legal or regulatory matters currently pending or threatened could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity, consolidated financial position, and/or results of operations. As of December 31, 2015, the Company does not have any litigation reserves. The Company is involved in the following legal actions and complaints which we currently believe could be material to us. A purported shareholder class action complaint was filed against the Company on August 23, 2010, in an action captioned Lloyd v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-06256- MMM, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Along with the Company, Christopher D. Myers (our President and Chief Executive Officer) and Edward J. Biebrich, Jr. (our former Chief Financial Officer) were also named as defendants. On September 14, 2010, a second purported shareholder class action complaint was filed against the Company, in an action originally captioned Englund v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-06815-RGK, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Englund complaint named the same defendants as the Lloyd complaint and made allegations substantially similar to those included in the Lloyd complaint. On January 21, 2011, the District Court consolidated the two actions for all purposes under the Lloyd action, now captioned as Case No. CV 10-06256-MMM (PJWx). At the same time, the District Court also appointed the Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund (the “Jacksonville Fund”) as lead plaintiff in the consolidated action and approved the Jacksonville Fund’s selection of lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the consolidated action. On March 7, 2011, the Jacksonville Fund filed a consolidated complaint naming the same defendants and alleging violations by all defendants of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and violations by the individual defendants of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The consolidated complaint alleges that defendants, among other things, misrepresented and failed to disclose conditions adversely affecting the Company throughout the purported class period, which is alleged to be between October 21, 2009 and August 9, 2010. Specifically, defendants are alleged to have violated applicable accounting rules and to have made misrepresentations in connection with the Company’s allowance for loan loss methodology, loan underwriting guidelines, methodology for grading loans, and the process for making provisions for loan losses. The consolidated complaint sought compensatory damages and other relief in favor of the purported class. Following the filing by each side of various motions and briefs, and a hearing on August 29, 2011, the District Court issued a ruling on January 12, 2012, granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, but the ruling provided the plaintiffs with leave to file an amended complaint within 45 days of the date of the order. On February 27, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint against the same defendants, and, following filings by both sides and another hearing on June 4, 2012, the District Court issued a ruling on August 21, 2012, granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, but providing the plaintiffs with leave to file another amended complaint within 30 days of this ruling. On September 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint against the same defendants, the Company filed its third motion to dismiss on October 25, 2012, and following another hearing on February 25, 2013, the District Court issued an order dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint for the third time on May 9, 2013, which became a final, appealable order on September 30, 2013. On October 24, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the District Court’s final order of dismissal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Following the filing of appellate briefs by the respective parties, the Court of Appeals conducted a hearing and oral argument in the case on December 10, 2015. On February 1, 2016, subsequent to the end of the reporting period covered by this Form 10-K, the Court of Appeals issued its decision in the case. This decision affirmed the district court’s decision in part, reversed it in part and remanded the case for further proceedings in the District Court. Upon remand to the District Court, we expect to undertake discovery and motion practice with respect to the remaining claims of the plaintiffs which survived the appeal. The Company intends to continue to vigorously contest and defend the plaintiff’s allegations with respect to the remaining claims in this case. On February 28, 2011, a purported and related shareholder derivative complaint was filed in an action captioned Sanderson v. Borba, et al., Case No. CIVRS1102119, in California State Superior Court in San Bernardino County. The complaint named as defendants the members of our board of directors and also referred to unnamed defendants allegedly responsible for the conduct alleged. The Company was included as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and corporate waste. Specifically, the complaint alleged, among other things, that defendants engaged in accounting manipulations in order to falsely portray the Company’s financial results in connection with its commercial real estate loan portfolio. Plaintiff sought compensatory and exemplary damages to be paid by the defendants and awarded to the Company, as well as other relief. On June 20, 2011, defendants filed a demurrer requesting dismissal of the derivative complaint. Following the filing by each side of additional motions, over the succeeding four year period, the parties filed repeated notices to postpone the Court’s hearing on the defendants’ demurrer, pending resolution of the consolidated federal securities shareholder class action complaint. However, on January 18, 2016, subsequent to the end of the reporting period covered by this Form 10-K, the Court signed a Minute Order agreeing to the parties’ joint stipulation to dismiss the shareholder derivative action complaint without prejudice. A former employee and service manager filed a complaint against the Company, on December 29, 2014, in an action entitled Glenda Morgan v. Citizens Business Bank, et al., Case No. BC568004, in the Superior Court for Los Angeles County, individually and on behalf of the Company’s branch-based employees and managers who are classified as “exempt” under California and federal employment laws. The case is styled as a putative class action lawsuit and alleges, among other things, that (i) the Company misclassified certain employees and managers as “exempt” employees, (ii) the Company violated California’s wage and hour, overtime, meal break and rest break rules and regulations, (iii) certain employees did not receive proper expense reimbursements, (iv) the Company did not maintain accurate and complete payroll records, and (v) the Company engaged in unfair business practices. On February 11, 2015, the same law firm representing Morgan filed a second complaint, entitled Jessica Osuna v. Citizens Business Bank, et al., Case No. CIVDS1501781, in the Superior Court for San Bernardino County, alleging wage and hour claims on behalf of the Company’s “non-exempt” hourly employees. On April 6, 2015, these two cases were consolidated in a first amended complaint under the rubric of the Morgan case in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The first amended complaint seeks class certification, the appointment of the plaintiffs as class representatives, and an unspecified amount of damages and penalties. On May 11, 2015, the Company filed its answer to the first amended complaint denying all allegations regarding the plaintiffs’ claims and asserting various defenses. The parties are currently engaged in discovery, and briefing by the parties in connection with the class certification motion is not expected to commence until at least the summer of 2016. The Company intends to vigorously contest both (x) the allegations that the case should be certified as one or more class or representative actions as well as (y) the substantive merits of any consolidated lawsuit in the event that it is permitted to proceed. We establish accruals for specific legal proceedings when it is considered probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Our accruals for loss contingencies are reviewed quarterly and adjusted as additional information becomes available. We disclose the amount accrued if material or if such disclosure is necessary for our financial statements to not be misleading. If a loss is not both probable and reasonably estimable, or if an exposure to loss exists in excess of the amount previously accrued, we assess whether there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss, or additional loss, may have been incurred, and we adjust our disclosures accordingly. Because the outcomes of the federal securities class action appeal and the consolidated wage-hour class action case summarized above are uncertain, we cannot predict any range of loss or even if any loss is probable related to these two actions. We do not presently believe that the ultimate resolution of any of the foregoing matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows. However, the results of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, and an unfavorable resolution of one or more of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows.

15. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments

At December 31, 2015 and 2014, the Bank had commitments to extend credit of approximately $744.0 million and $694.4 million, respectively, and obligations under letters of credit of $35.1 million and $34.6 million, respectively. Commitments to extend credit are agreements to lend to customers, provided there is no violation of any condition established in the contract. Commitments generally have fixed expiration dates or other termination clauses and may require payment of a fee. Commitments are generally variable rate, and many of these commitments are expected to expire without being drawn upon. As such, the total commitment amounts do not necessarily represent future cash requirements. The Bank uses the same credit underwriting policies in granting or accepting such commitments or contingent obligations as it does for on-balance-sheet instruments, which consist of evaluating customers’ creditworthiness individually. The Bank had a reserve for unfunded loan commitments of $7.2 million as of December 31, 2015 and $7.7 million as of December 31, 2014 included in other liabilities.

Standby letters of credit are conditional commitments issued by the Bank to guarantee the financial performance of a customer to a third party. Those guarantees are primarily issued to support private borrowing or purchase arrangements. The credit risk involved in issuing letters of credit is essentially the same as that involved in extending loan facilities to customers. When deemed necessary, the Bank holds appropriate collateral supporting those commitments. Management does not anticipate any material losses as a result of these transactions.

At December 31, 2015, the Bank has available lines of credit totaling $3.23 billion from correspondent banks, FHLB and Federal Reserve Bank of which $2.84 billion were secured.

Other Contingencies

Certain lawsuits and claims arising in the ordinary course of business have been filed or are pending against us or our affiliates, including but not limited to actions involving employment, wage-hour and labor law claims, lender liability claims, trust and estate administration claims, and consumer and privacy claims, some of which may be styled as “class action” or representative cases. Where appropriate, we establish reserves in accordance with FASB guidance over loss contingencies (ASC 450). The outcome of litigation and other legal and regulatory matters is inherently uncertain, however, and it is possible that one or more of the legal or regulatory matters currently pending or threatened could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity, consolidated financial position, and/or results of operations. As of December 31, 2015, the Company does not have any litigation reserves.

The Company is involved in the following legal actions and complaints which we currently believe could be material to us.

A purported shareholder class action complaint was filed against the Company on August 23, 2010, in an action captioned Lloyd v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-06256- MMM, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Along with the Company, Christopher D. Myers (our President and Chief Executive Officer) and Edward J. Biebrich, Jr. (our former Chief Financial Officer) were also named as defendants. On September 14, 2010, a second purported shareholder class action complaint was filed against the Company, in an action originally captioned Englund v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-06815-RGK, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Englund complaint named the same defendants as the Lloyd complaint and made allegations substantially similar to those included in the Lloyd complaint. On January 21, 2011, the District Court consolidated the two actions for all purposes under the Lloyd action, now captioned as Case No. CV 10-06256-MMM (PJWx). At the same time, the District Court also appointed the Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund (the “Jacksonville Fund”) as lead plaintiff in the consolidated action and approved the Jacksonville Fund’s selection of lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the consolidated action.

On March 7, 2011, the Jacksonville Fund filed a consolidated complaint naming the same defendants and alleging violations by all defendants of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and violations by the individual defendants of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The consolidated complaint alleges that defendants, among other things, misrepresented and failed to disclose conditions adversely affecting the Company throughout the purported class period, which is alleged to be between October 21, 2009 and August 9, 2010. Specifically, defendants are alleged to have violated applicable accounting rules and to have made misrepresentations in connection with the Company’s allowance for loan loss methodology, loan underwriting guidelines, methodology for grading loans, and the process for making provisions for loan losses. The consolidated complaint sought compensatory damages and other relief in favor of the purported class.

Following the filing by each side of various motions and briefs, and a hearing on August 29, 2011, the District Court issued a ruling on January 12, 2012, granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, but the ruling provided the plaintiffs with leave to file an amended complaint within 45 days of the date of the order. On February 27, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint against the same defendants, and, following filings by both sides and another hearing on June 4, 2012, the District Court issued a ruling on August 21, 2012, granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, but providing the plaintiffs with leave to file another amended complaint within 30 days of this ruling. On September 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint against the same defendants, the Company filed its third motion to dismiss on October 25, 2012, and following another hearing on February 25, 2013, the District Court issued an order dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint for the third time on May 9, 2013, which became a final, appealable order on September 30, 2013.

On October 24, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the District Court’s final order of dismissal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Following the filing of appellate briefs by the respective parties, the Court of Appeals conducted a hearing and oral argument in the case on December 10, 2015. On February 1, 2016, subsequent to the end of the reporting period covered by this Form 10-K, the Court of Appeals issued its decision in the case. This decision affirmed the district court’s decision in part, reversed it in part and remanded the case for further proceedings in the District Court. Upon remand to the District Court, we expect to undertake discovery and motion practice with respect to the remaining claims of the plaintiffs which survived the appeal.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously contest and defend the plaintiff’s allegations with respect to the remaining claims in this case.

On February 28, 2011, a purported and related shareholder derivative complaint was filed in an action captioned Sanderson v. Borba, et al., Case No. CIVRS1102119, in California State Superior Court in San Bernardino County. The complaint named as defendants the members of our board of directors and also referred to unnamed defendants allegedly responsible for the conduct alleged. The Company was included as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and corporate waste. Specifically, the complaint alleged, among other things, that defendants engaged in accounting manipulations in order to falsely portray the Company’s financial results in connection with its commercial real estate loan portfolio. Plaintiff sought compensatory and exemplary damages to be paid by the defendants and awarded to the Company, as well as other relief.

On June 20, 2011, defendants filed a demurrer requesting dismissal of the derivative complaint. Following the filing by each side of additional motions, over the succeeding four year period, the parties filed repeated notices to postpone the Court’s hearing on the defendants’ demurrer, pending resolution of the consolidated federal securities shareholder class action complaint. However, on January 18, 2016, subsequent to the end of the reporting period covered by this Form 10-K, the Court signed a Minute Order agreeing to the parties’ joint stipulation to dismiss the shareholder derivative action complaint without prejudice.

A former employee and service manager filed a complaint against the Company, on December 29, 2014, in an action entitled Glenda Morgan v. Citizens Business Bank, et al., Case No. BC568004, in the Superior Court for Los Angeles County, individually and on behalf of the Company’s branch-based employees and managers who are classified as “exempt” under California and federal employment laws. The case is styled as a putative class action lawsuit and alleges, among other things, that (i) the Company misclassified certain employees and managers as “exempt” employees, (ii) the Company violated California’s wage and hour, overtime, meal break and rest break rules and regulations, (iii) certain employees did not receive proper expense reimbursements, (iv) the Company did not maintain accurate and complete payroll records, and (v) the Company engaged in unfair business practices. On February 11, 2015, the same law firm representing Morgan filed a second complaint, entitled Jessica Osuna v. Citizens Business Bank, et al., Case No. CIVDS1501781, in the Superior Court for San Bernardino County, alleging wage and hour claims on behalf of the Company’s “non-exempt” hourly employees. On April 6, 2015, these two cases were consolidated in a first amended complaint under the rubric of the Morgan case in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The first amended complaint seeks class certification, the appointment of the plaintiffs as class representatives, and an unspecified amount of damages and penalties.

On May 11, 2015, the Company filed its answer to the first amended complaint denying all allegations regarding the plaintiffs’ claims and asserting various defenses. The parties are currently engaged in discovery, and briefing by the parties in connection with the class certification motion is not expected to commence until at least the summer of 2016. The Company intends to vigorously contest both (x) the allegations that the case should be certified as one or more class or representative actions as well as (y) the substantive merits of any consolidated lawsuit in the event that it is permitted to proceed.

We establish accruals for specific legal proceedings when it is considered probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Our accruals for loss contingencies are reviewed quarterly and adjusted as additional information becomes available. We disclose the amount accrued if material or if such disclosure is necessary for our financial statements to not be misleading. If a loss is not both probable and reasonably estimable, or if an exposure to loss exists in excess of the amount previously accrued, we assess whether there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss, or additional loss, may have been incurred, and we adjust our disclosures accordingly. Because the outcomes of the federal securities class action appeal and the consolidated wage-hour class action case summarized above are uncertain, we cannot predict any range of loss or even if any loss is probable related to these two actions. We do not presently believe that the ultimate resolution of any of the foregoing matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows. However, the results of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, and an unfavorable resolution of one or more of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows.