Bank of California v. Chemical Bank

983 F.2d 1075 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. BANK OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHEMICAL BANK, Defendant-Appellant, No. 91-16275. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Dec. 15, 1992. Decided Jan. 8, 1993. Before HUG, PREGERSON and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 The issue in this case is whether Chemical Bank wrongfully dishonored Bank of California's presentment for payment on a letter of credit. Chemical Bank claims that the district court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of the Bank of California ("BankCal"), because the letter of credit was not binding and BankCal's presentment was fraudulent. We affirm on the basis of the district court order of December 26, 1990. 3 We have considered the arguments advanced by Chemical Bank. No material issue of fact existed as to Cheung's authority to issue the letter of credit or as to the letter's binding effect on Chemical Bank. Furthermore, Chemical Bank…