truck in may of two thousand and fourteen to determine whether he has crossed the was still authorized to transact business in the tribes accounts and whether that was inadequate not reasonable now the tribe was a deposit council something fishy and inquired further but there is a california statute it looks as though there's some legislators are some people who who had dealings with banks were saying the banks are jacking us around we we depositors we asked for money and instead of giving us our money they jerk us around and the california legislature passed a law that says it doesn't matter what's going on when a deposit or says give me my money they have to give me their money and if the signature card says this is the representative of the deposit or that set or that's the way the statute reads to me as so it looks as though even if the bank had plenty of suspicion that something was fishy they had no choice under the law they just had to have the money until there was the change your signature card what am i missing here here so your honor  engaged in that conduct with reference to the accounts and whenever a bang takes actions with regards to someone's account deposit account they have to take those actions with reasonable care now then then you have to stop stop obeying the last of us there is a should but before that it seems to me that this judge kleinfeld says under california law they were required to to honor the west authorization idea i want to give you a hypothetical that i think incorporates what you're about to say but suppose the bank did start an investigation and asked somebody  find out what's going on here was the cry been and the investigator came back with a report saying what's happening is this enos and crosby's in the loz he's there just stealing money from the tribe and every time you pay it california law and says unless they give you another signature card you have to honor the signature card and the resolution that says those signatures are good and you just don't have a choice even though you know or care and the judge point felt vindicated bankers got to the legislature and said we need to carve out a piece from that reasonable care and what the what the legislature has done ok all right you guys don't have a on a reservation issue with respect to what i would describe as the negligent undertaking argument mr gross's that is presenting which is to say that in the trial court proceedings after the allegations about california already applying those provisions discussing the public polls he's behind them discussing how banks can be strictly liable for wrongful dishonor of shops they have an obligation to process valid transactions initiated by authorized signers and therefore as a result we would submit that there's just no circumstance here that there could be give rise to negligent undertaking any of that so for three reasons nic i want to go jewelry that there were allegations in the newspaper and therefore we should have froze it they only added those allegations about the investigation after they took depositions of those witnesses in the nd medically we specifically reach the issue because you know assuming that they're relying upon the doctrine they need to have reliance or increase of the risk of harm and you still have the competing issue of the policies underlying four hundred and fifty and four thousand and fifty one  you know we need to provide access because we can be liable for of wrongful the owner and that's ultimately what happened so i think for the for those reasons there's no duty in this context and there's no allegations of actual knowledge and therefore the court should have done so and i told you this from my microphone issue not just out of a biased in it was based on primarily the fact that get over to duty of reasonable care so it was not advised general of the age it was the person who under well established california law how to duty any