Crystaplex Plastics v. Redevelopment Agency
Decision Date | 26 January 2000 |
Citation | 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 197,77 Cal.App.4th 990 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2000) CRYSTAPLEX PLASTICS, LTD., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF BARSTOW, Defendant and Respondent. E024343 Filed |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. John M. Tomberlin, Judge. Reversed.
Heenan Blaikie and Deborah F. Sirias for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Richards, Watson & Gershon, Anthony B. Drewry and Michael G. Colantuono for Defendant and Respondent.
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
The trial court sustained the demurrer of defendant Redevelopment Agency of the City of Barstow to plaintiff's first amended complaint without leave to amend and ordered the action dismissed. Plaintiff appeals.
(Interinsurance Exchange v. Narula (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1140, 1143.)
The complaint alleges that plaintiff Crystaplex contracted to supply and install a hockey rink at the Sportspark in Barstow. The Sportspark is owned by defendant Redevelopment Agency, and the general contractor on the construction project was Recreation Technologists, Inc. ("Rectech"). Rectech employed a subcontractor named Earth Inline Hockey, Inc. ("EIH"), and EIH contracted with Crystaplex. Crystaplex performed its obligations under the contract between September and December 1996.
On or about December 6, 1996, the Redevelopment Agency issued a check in the amount of $31,979 for the hockey rink. The check was made payable jointly to EIH and Crystaplex. The check was sent to EIH and EIH cashed it without paying Crystaplex. Crystaplex discovered these facts in April 1997.
Crystaplex then sued the Redevelopment Agency as drawer of the check.
The Redevelopment Agency demurred, contending that the complaint failed to state a cause of action against it under California Uniform Commercial Code sections 3309, subdivision (a)(2) and 3310, subdivision (b)(4) because it fails to allege the facts required for application of either of those sections.1 Defendant's position was, and is, that these sections are intended to protect a payee whose check is lost, destroyed, or stolen. Defendant contended, and contends, that the facts alleged do not show that the check was lost, destroyed or stolen, and that the statutes are therefore inapplicable. The trial court agreed, and sustained the demurrer.
Plaintiff appeals, contending that the allegations of the complaint are adequate to state a cause of action for recovery for a lost, destroyed, or stolen check under sections 3309 and 3310, subdivision (b)(4).
Accepting, as we must, the factual allegations of the complaint, it appears that Crystaplex was a materials supplier to a public works project owned by defendant
Redevelopment Agency. Rectech was the general contractor and EIH was a subcontractor. The Redevelopment Agency apparently employed a joint check system to pay the general contractor, subcontractors, and material suppliers. (1 Acret, Cal. Construction Contracts and Disputes (3d ed. 1999) 3.82, p. 243.)
As our Supreme Court describes it: (Post Bros. Constr. Co. v. Yoder (1977) 20 Cal.3d 1, 5-6.)2
In this case, the owner issued a joint check to a subcontractor and a materialman. The owner allegedly sent the check to EIH, the subcontractor, and EIH allegedly cashed or deposited the check without obtaining the endorsement or consent of Crystaplex. In this action, Crystaplex has elected to proceed against the Redevelopment Agency, as drawer of the check, under sections 3309 and 3310, subdivision (b)(4). Accordingly, we only consider whether the plaintiff has stated a cause of action under those sections, and we do not decide or express any view as to Crystaplex's stop notice or other remedies.3
Similarly, we do not consider the question of Crystaplex's remedies against the bank that cashed the check, nor do we need to decide whether the stop notice remedy is plaintiff's exclusive remedy under Civil Code section 3264, or whether, as plaintiff contends, the stop notice remedy is a cumulative remedy.
Section 3309 allows the payee of a check to enforce it against the drawer when the check has been lost or stolen. Specifically, it states:
(2 White & Summers, Uniform Commercial Code (4th ed. 1995) 18-2, p. 211.) Thus, "[i]n the limited cases covered by 3-309 the payee may sue upstream against the drawer on a stolen (or lost) instrument, provided the payee indemnifies the drawer against the possibility of a second claim on the stolen check." (2 White & Summers, supra, at 18-1, p. 208.)
Section 3310, subdivision (b)(4) states: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Crystaplex v. Redevelopment Agency, E024343.
...92 Cal.Rptr.2d 197 ... 77 Cal.App.4th 990 ... CRYSTAPLEX PLASTICS, LTD., Plaintiff and Appellant, ... REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF BARSTOW, Defendant and Respondent ... No. E024343 ... Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 2 ... January 26, 2000 ... [92 Cal.Rptr.2d 199] ... [77 Cal.App.4th 992] ... Heenan Blaikie and Deborah F ... ...