With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". outcome of BofA’s statute of limitations and issue preclusion arguments affects the disposition of the remainder of this motion, the court addresses these issues first. BofA contends that Plaintiffs claims, which stem from Reichart’s misuse of checks on Plaintiffs accounts, are time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations under California Civil Procedure Code § 340(c) and precluded by California Commercial Code § 4406(f). 2. Applicable Law California Code Civil Proc. § 340(c) provides a one-year statute of limitations to file “[a]n action ... by a depositor against a bank for the payment of a forged or raised check, or a check that bears a forged or unauthorized endorsement.” § 340(c); see also Chatsky & Assocs. v. Super. Ct., 117 Cal.App.4th 873, 875, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 154 (2004) (<HOLDING>). The limitation applies “independently with

A: holding that  340c rather than the threeyear statute of limitations in california commercial code  4111 applies to claims by depositors against their bank for payment of forged checks written on the depositors accounts
B: holding that new yorks threeyear residual statute of limitations for personal injury claims not embraced by specific statutes rather than oneyear statute of limitations for intentional torts governed  1983 action
C: holding that in california the oneyear statute applies to a  1983 action
D: holding durable power of attorney conferred broad powers sufficient to authorize savings and loan association to issue checks for depositors funds to an attorneyinfact personally at the attorneyinfacts request
A.