Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Barrett Business Services, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 597
The issuer of a check remains liable to the payee if the check is not delivered, and issuance of a check does not discharge liability.
Applied to find defendant liable despite issuance of check not received by applicant.
From the decision · page 7It is settled law that when the issuer of a check or other negotiable instrument does not
deliver the check to the payee, the issuer remains liable to the payee on the underlying obligation.
People v. Smith (2004) 32 Cal.4th 792; Craig v. Brown & Root (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 416
The presumption that a mailed letter was received is rebuttable and requires weighing evidence of mailing against evidence of non-receipt.
Applied to reject defendant's claim of mailing without proof of delivery to applicant's proper address.
From the decision · page 3[T]he presumption that a letter mailed was received is rebuttable. (People v.
Smith (2004) 32 Cal.4th 792, 799.) The trier of fact is obligated to "assume the
existence of the presumed fact unless and until evidence is introduced to support
a finding of its nonexistence." (Craig v. Brown & Root (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th
416, 421, 100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 818.) A mere allegation that the recipient did not
receive the mailed document has been found to be insufficient to rebut the
presumption. (See Alvarado v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 35
Cal.Comp.Cases 370 (writ den.) and Castro v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
(1996) 61 Cal.Comp.Cases 1460 (writ den.).) If the sending party thus produces
evidence that a document was mailed, the burden shifts to the recipient to
produce "believable contrary evidence" that it was not received. (Craig, supra,
at pp. 421-422, citing Slater v. Kehoe (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 819, 832, fn. 12,
113 Cal. Rptr. 790.) Once the recipient produces sufficient evidence showing
non-receipt of the mailed item, "the presumption disappears" and the "trier of
fact must then weigh the denial of receipt against the inference of receipt arising
from proof of mailing and decide whether or not the letter was received."
Conti v. Board of Civil Service Commissioners (1969) 1 Cal.3d 351; Truck Ins. Exchange v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kwok) (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 394
The defense of laches requires unreasonable delay plus acquiescence or prejudice to defendant due to delay.
Applied to find laches defense failed as applicant promptly raised issue upon learning of check after settlement.