202 Cal. App. 4th 195
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Appellant sues Wells Fargo for identity theft related to two forged HELOC checks totaling $99,000.
- Wells Fargo demurs citing CCP 340(c), the one-year depositor-forged-check statute.
- Trial court initially held CCP 340(c) applies and granted leave to amend, then allowed a second amended complaint.
- Second amended complaint added seven new causes of action (2,5-8) without leave to amend, along with revised identity theft allegations.
- Court held Appellant is not a depositor on the HELOC and CCP 340(c) does not apply; demurrer to certain claims reversed; most striking/strike-and-dismiss orders affirmed or reversed as specified; costs awarded to Appellant.
- Appellant attached May 5, 2007 letter, the forged checks (April 1 and 3, 2007), and a police report to the second amended complaint.
- Trial court denied leave to amend sufficiently for the new theories, prompting Wells Fargo to move to strike the new causes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CCP 340(c) applies to Appellant’s HELOC claims. | Fayroyan-Mezhlumyan asserts identity-theft timing tied to forged checks beyond depositor context. | Wells Fargo contends CCP 340(c) governs a depositor against a bank for forged/raised checks. | CCP 340(c) does not apply; Appellant not a depositor. |
| Whether Appellant is a depositor for HELOC purposes and whether 340(c) is inapplicable. | HELOC is a bank account; actions arise from forged checks. | HELOC is a loan account; not a deposit account; not a depositor. | Appellant is not a depositor; 340(c) inapplicable. |
| Whether the trial court properly struck the new causes of action (2,5-8) for lack of leave to amend. | New theories arise from same facts and respond to demurrer. | New, unrelated theories were not drawn to address the prior ruling; should be struck. | Second, fifth, sixth, and seventh actions struck; eighth (17200) reversed. |
| Whether the demurrer to the identity theft, negligence, and breach of contract claims should be sustained given statute of limitations. | Claims fall under a four-year limit for identity theft; not limited to forged-check payments. | CCP 340(c) bars these actions as time-barred. | Demurrer to first, third, and fourth causes reversed; 340(c) not applicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc., 51 Cal.4th 524 (Cal. 2011) (statutory interpretation framework; look to ordinary meaning; legislative intent)
- McCall v. PacifiCare of Cal., Inc., 25 Cal.4th 412 (Cal. 2001) (de novo review of demurrers; presume factual pleading true)
- Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com., 43 Cal.3d 1379 (Cal. 1987) (statutes harmonization; internal consistency in statutory interpretation)
- Roy Supply, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, 39 Cal.App.4th 1051 (Cal. App. Dist. 2) (UCC 4406 as issue-preclusion, not a limitations statute)