Cal. Codes » Commercial Code / DIVISION 3. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS / CHAPTER 3. Enforcement of Instruments
California Codes

Cal. Commercial Code § 3301 (2026)

Enforcement of Instruments

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

“Person entitled to enforce” an instrument means (a) the holder of the instrument, (b) a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or (c) a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to Section 3309 or subdivision (d) of Section 3418. A person may be a person entitled to enforce the instrument even though the person is not the owner of the instrument or is in wrongful possession of the instrument.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: Gardner v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 691 F. Supp. 2d 1192 (E.D. Cal. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gardner v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 691 F. Supp. 2d 1192 (E.D. Cal. 2010). · cites it 5× “) Plaintiff alleges that: Defendants, and each of them, are hot the real parties in interest, are not the legal trustee, mortgagee or beneficiary, nor are they authorized agents of the trustee, mortgagee or beneficiary, nor are they in possession of the Note, or holders of the…”
Champlaie v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 706 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (E.D. Cal. 2009). · cites it 3× “Plaintiff argues that even when the deed of trust designates a party as a trustee or beneficiary and the party complies with the remaining requirements of sections 2924 through 2924Í, this is not sufficient to demonstrate that a party has the power to foreclose, because the…”
Cedano v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC (In Re Cedano), 470 B.R. 522 (9th Cir. BAP 2012). · cites it 3× “On December 10, 2010, the Debtor initiated an adversary proceeding by filing a complaint (Complaint) against Aurora, Deutsche Bank, the Rali Trust, SCME, MERS and Cal-Western (collectively, the Defendants) alleging six causes of action: (1) wrongful foreclosure, asserting that…”
In Re Vargas, 396 B.R. 511 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008). · cites it 2× “See Cal.Com. Code § 3301. The holder enforces the note by making a demand for payment.”
Castaneda v. Saxon Mortg. Servs., Inc., 687 F. Supp. 2d 1191 (E.D. Cal. 2009). “Plaintiffs attempt to base this claim first on California Commercial Code section 3301, alleging that Saxon and MERS were not in possession of the Note, and are not beneficiaries, assignees or employees of the entity in possession of the note, and are therefore not “person[s]…”
Smith v. CitiMortgage, Inc. (In re Smith), 509 B.R. 260 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2014). · cites it 3× “To resolve these motions, the Court need answer only one question: does Citi have the right to enforce the Note? Plaintiff asserts that Citi is not “a person entitled to enforce an instrument” under Cal. Comm. Code § 3301 (quoted below) because (1) the Note is not governed by…”
Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Lane (In Re Lane), 589 B.R. 399 (9th Cir. BAP 2018). “See Cal. Comm. Code § 3301 . However, unlike the debtors in Blendheim , Lane never attacked the validity of the underlying loan documents, and he certainly never disputed getting the $560,000 loan for the Property.”
Harms v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon (In Re Harms), 603 B.R. 19 (9th Cir. BAP 2019). “See also Cal. Commercial Code §§ 3301 (a) (a holder of the note is entitled to enforce the note); 3201 (an entity can become a holder of the note by negotiation - the transfer of possession of an instrument payable to the bearer); and 3205(b) ("[w]hen indorsed in blank, an…”
Ohlendorf v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, 279 F.R.D. 575 (E.D. Cal. 2010). “, ADSI, Deutsche, and MERS because they do not possess the note, are not beneficiaries, assignees, or employees of the person or entity in possession of the note, and are not otherwise entitled to payment, such that they are not persons entitled to enforce the security interest…”
In Re Hwang, 438 B.R. 661 (C.D. Cal. 2010). “See Cal. Com.Code § 3301. The bankruptcy court found (and the evidence confirms) that IndyMac is the holder of the Note.”
Bank of Am. Nat'l Trust & Sav. Ass'n v. Allstate Ins., 29 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (C.D. Cal. 1998). “See Cal.Comm.Code § 3301(b)(4) & cmt. 4. Bank of America no longer has possession of the check, therefore it is limited to an action on the instrument under section 3309.”
In Re Aniel, 427 B.R. 811 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2010). “Cal. Comm.Code § 3301. A “holder” of a note is “the person in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either to bearer or, to an identified person that is the person in possession.”
Show all 31 citing cases →
Cal. Commercial Code § 3301(b)(4): 1 case
Bank of Am. Nat'l Trust & Sav. Ass'n v. Allstate Ins., 29 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (C.D. Cal. 1998). “See Cal.Comm.Code § 3301(b)(4) & cmt. 4. Bank of America no longer has possession of the check, therefore it is limited to an action on the instrument under section 3309.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.