C.A. Identifies Lawyer Who Was Scammed by Initials, Only

Monday, April 13, 2026

Page 1

C.A. Identifies Lawyer Who Was Scammed by Initials, Only

Opinion Cites No Basis for Withholding Identity; Justices Reinstate Cause of Action Against Wells Fargo

By Roger M. Grace, editor

Div. Four of the First District Court of Appeal has issued a decision in the case of Y.P. v. Wells Fargo Co., according anonymity to a San Francisco lawyer who accepted from a new “client” a $99,700 cashier’s check—supposedly representing monies owed that person by a third party—deposited it, three days later honored a request to wire $89,730 to the client, then, after the check was found to be bogus, sued the bank to recover the lost monies.

Wells Fargo apparently tried to fetch back funds from the bank to which the $89,730 was routed but eventually abandoned its efforts and the lawyer had $99,700 deducted from his IOLTA account.

The appeals court on Thursday declared that one of nine causes of action against the bank—for negligent misrepresentation—was erroneously dismissed. It provided no indication of why it thought a lawyer/litigant’s identity should be withheld simply because the conduct of that party might be perceived as having been foolish.

Attorney Yosef Peretz sued as “Y.P., individually and/or D.B.A. P&A.” The complaint was signed by David Garibaldi of Peretz & Associates.

Plaintiff’s Allegation

It sets forth:

“Plaintiff suspected that the check may be fraudulent and sought out to the Wells Fargo Entities’ stated expertise in verifying fraudulent financial instruments before initiating the wire transfer. A bank employee, Ignacio, spoke with Plaintiff over the phone and in-person at the Wells Fargo Entities’ Haight Branch…and assured Plaintiff multiple times that the Check had cleared, the funds were ‘good’, and Plaintiff had ‘nothing to worry about.’ ”

Peretz sued Wells Fargo & Company, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and Wells Fargo employee Earl Ignacio for the full $99,700—the $89,730 he lost plus the $9,970 the client told him to retain as a fee.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard B. Ulmer sustained a demurrer without leave to amend to all causes of action and a judgment of dismissal was entered.

Mendocino Superior Court Judge Ann C. Moorman, sitting on assignment, authored the opinion, filed Thursday, reversing the judgment to the extent of reinstating a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation.

Wells Fargo’s Position

Addressing that cause of action, Wells Fargo said in its respondent’s brief—in which it referred to Peretz by name, as it had in the trial court:

“[T]he trial court…correctly held that Peretz failed to allege a viable claim for negligent misrepresentation because he did not allege facts showing that Wells Fargo knew the cashier’s check that Peretz had deposited was fraudulent or would be returned unpaid when Ignacio supposedly assured Peretz that the cashier’s check had cleared, the funds were good, and he had nothing to worry about.”

It set forth that “courts have repeatedly held that a bank employee’s statement that the deposited check was ‘good; or the funds from it are ‘available’ have been held to be ‘ambiguous remarks’ that no depositor could reasonably rely on.”

Moorman said the out-of-state authorities cited by Wells Fargo “are distinguishable because they merely concerned representations about the availability of funds” while Ignacio’s alleged assurances “were in direct response to Y.P.’s inquiries regarding the check’s validity, not merely the availability of the funds.”

Appellate Court Opinion

The pro tem justice wrote:

“Nothing in the commercial code per se prohibits a negligent misrepresentation claim concerning a bank’s statements about a check’s status….

“Indeed, the commercial code approves the practice of extending provisional credit for deposits and charging back if unpaid, and the official comment to Uniform Commercial Code section 4-214 describes the practice as ‘justified.’ ”

She went on to say that to plead a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, the plaintiff must allege that a statement was made “ ‘without reasonable ground for believing it to be true.’ ” The jurist pointed to the allegation in the complaint that the bank manager knew “the correct procedure for verifying whether a check is ‘good’ is to call the payor/issuing bank prior to doing the wire” transfer, saying that satisfied the element.

The opinion appears in today’s Slip Opinion Supplement at 1001.

Peretz commented on Friday:

“We’re very satisfied and pleased with the Court of Appeal decision that gave the green light for our lawsuit to move forward to trial. It’s a resounding victory for consumers fighting big banks particularly when cyber fraud cases are so rampant.”

Other Litigation

This was not Peretz’s first battle with Wells Fargo. A 2018 ALM article reported:

“When Sacramento joined the ranks of cities suing Wells Fargo & Co. over allegations of discriminatory mortgage lending practices, it turned last month to a lawyer at a small firm in San Francisco who has become a familiar foe for the bank. Yosef Peretz, of Peretz & Associates, first sued Wells Fargo in 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where he represented a fired employee who accused the bank of opening accounts without customers’ permission—the same conduct that would arise six years later in the bank’s $185 million settlement with federal regulators and the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office. In the years since, Peretz has been hired by Miami Gardens, Florida, and Oakland to participate in the lawsuits those cities brought against Wells Fargo, accused of saddling minority borrowers with loans that were costlier than those offered to similarly situated white borrowers.”

Wells Fargo’s brief makes note that in 2011, the State Bar’s Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct issued an “ethics alert” reporting that “[a]ttorneys in the United States, particularly sole practitioners and lawyers with small firms, are falling prey to sophisticated, often international Internet scams that can have severe consequences, financial and otherwise,” describing the sort of fraud perpetrated on Peretz. Moorman described it as a “common check fraud scam.”

Moorman did not attempt to square the use of Peretz’s initials in place of his name with this pronouncement by the Sixth District Court of Appeal in its 2022 decision in Department of Fair Employment & Housing v. Superior Court:

“Much like closing the courtroom or sealing a court record, allowing a party to litigate anonymously impacts the First Amendment public access right. Before a party to a civil action can be permitted to use a pseudonym, the trial court must conduct a hearing and apply the overriding interest test: A party’s request for anonymity should be granted only if the court finds that an overriding interest will likely be prejudiced without use of a pseudonym, and that it is not feasible to protect the interest with less impact on the constitutional right of access. In deciding the issue the court must bear in mind the critical importance of the public’s right to access judicial proceedings. Outside of cases where anonymity is expressly permitted by statute, litigating by pseudonym should occur ‘only in the rarest of circumstances.’ ”

The “only in the rarest of circumstances” standard was set forth by the California Supreme Court in its 1999 decision in NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court.

The San Francisco Superior Court indulged Peretz in the use of his initials in identifying himself, without expressly giving its consent. Wells Fargo pointed out in an early filing, “Plaintiff Yosef Peretz (who sues under the pseudonym ‘Y.P.’) is an attorney and brings this lawsuit in his individual capacity and on behalf of his law firm PERETZ & ASSOCIATES….”