Doctors note work law

Procedural Posture

Petitioner bank customer requested a writ of mandate challenging the decision of respondent Superior Court of Los Angeles County, which granted summary judgment in favor of the bank, the real party in interest, as to 23 checks. Petitioner's underlying action sought damages based on the bank's payment of 83 checks containing less than all the required signatures.

Overview: doctors note for work law

A bank paid 83 checks drawn on petitioner bank customer's account that had only one of two required signatures. Petitioner brought an action to recover the sums paid on the checks. Respondent Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted the bank summary judgment as to 23 checks, finding that the claim was barred by Cal. Com. Code § 4111, a three-year statute of limitation, and Cal. Com. Code § 4406(f), a requirement to report to the bank losses due to "unauthorized signatures" within one year after receiving the bank statement. Petitioner sought a writ of mandate. The court denied the petition, holding that the term "unauthorized signatures" included an instance in which one of the required signatures was lacking. The court also held that §§ 4111 and 4406(f) could be applied retroactively, despite the fact that the sections were amended after the period during which the 23 checks were drawn. The court held that respondent's order of summary judgment as to claims on a portion of the checks drawn was permissible because, under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 437c(f), summary judgment could be granted against separate wrongful acts that were combined in the same cause of action.

Outcome

The court denied petitioner bank customer's request for a writ of mandate, holding that petitioner's action with respect to 23 checks paid by the bank, the real party in interest, was barred by the applicable statutory statute of limitations and reporting requirements. The court held that the application of the statutes could be made retroactively.