Union Bank of Cal. v. Disco Print Supply
Filed 3/21/06 Union Bank of Cal. v. Disco Print Supply CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA, N.A., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DISCO PRINT SUPPLY CO. et al., Defendants and Appellants. | G034059 (Super. Ct. No. 03CC01710) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Richard O. Frazee, Judge. Reversed and remanded.
McQueen & Ashman and James A. McQueen for Defendants and Appellants.
Mulvaney, Kahan & Barry, Everett G. Barry, Jr., and Kit James Gardner for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
Union Bank successfully sought summary judgment against a merchant for whom it processes credit card transactions. Defendants seek reversal, asserting the trial court improperly applied the parol evidence rule. Because triable issues of material fact exist, summary judgment was not appropriate and we therefore reverse the judgment.
I
FACTS
In 1993, two partnerships, Disco Print Supply Co. and Wholesale 46 (the partnerships) ran a mail order business for office supplies. The partners were Elias Khamis and his brothers and sisters, Violette Khamis, Juliette Khamis, Isa Khamis, and Ibrahim Khamis.
In May 1993, the partnerships and Union Bank (the Bank) entered into a Bank Card Member Agreement (the 1993 Agreement). Under the 1993 Agreement, the Bank processed credit cards for the partnerships and was entitled to a merchant fee for each transaction. The 1993 Agreement stated that the partnerships were liable for any transactions that might be reversed (referred to as â€
