Greenberg v. First Bank, Inc.

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that because they still possess all five original, uncancelled CDs, a presumption of nonpayment automatically applies under Comm. Code § 3104(j) and Evid. Code § 635. Plaintiffs also argue that triable issues of material fact remain over whether the CDs were ever paid, surrendered, cancelled, or rolled over. Plaintiffs further argue that banks in the 1980s wrote non-negotiable on CDs to mean that the interest rate was fixed, not that there was a contractual obligation to repay. In reply, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs fail to establish that the certificates are admissible because they failed to lay an evidentiary foundation. Additionally, Defendant alleges Plaintiffs cited a non-existent, AI-generated case, Mitchell v. Bank of America (1928) 89 Cal.App. 467, 471-472, to prove that an essential feature of a CD is the requirement of surrender at maturity. Defendant further alleges that Plaintiffs' counsel cited cases that do exist but do not stand for the propositions for which they are cited, including People v. Wharton (1991) 53 Cal.3d 522 and AARTS Productions, Inc. v. Crocker Nat'l Bank(1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 1061. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs admitted to rolling over their initial deposit into successive certificates of deposit. Defendant also argues that its evidence shows that it does not owe money to Plaintiffs. Finally, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's argument about 1980s banking practices is unsupported in fact and law. c. Evidentiary Objections Plaintiffs object to the declaration of Mandi Willis. Objections 1-5 are OVERRULED. Plaintiffs object to the declaration of Jeffrey Kirshenbaum. Objections 1-8 are OVERRULED.

Authorities cited in the passage: Plaintiffs cited People v. Wharton but allegedly relied on it for a proposition the case does not support · Inc. v. Crocker Nat'l Bank but allegedly misapplied its holding. In opposition · Mitchell v. Bank of America · People v. Wharton · Inc. v. Crocker Nat'l Bank