Procedural Posture

Plaintiff insured petitioned for a writ of mandate seeking review of a decision of respondent Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) that denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in an action between plaintiff and defendant insurer, regarding defendant's right to recover from plaintiff attorney's fees and costs expended to defend plaintiff from claims for which there was no coverage under the policy.

Overview: civil code 3343

Respondent lower court denied plaintiff insured's motion for summary judgment, in an action regarding the right of defendant insurer, the real party in interest, to recover from plaintiff the attorney's fees and costs expended to defend plaintiff from claims for which there was no coverage under the policy but were joined to a claim that was covered. Specifically, only one of the 27 counts alleged against plaintiff in the underlying action, a defamation claim, was potentially covered. Furthermore, the insurer had provided a defense to plaintiff insured under a reservation of rights. Plaintiff petitioned for a writ of mandate, which the court denied. It held that because defendant insurer provided a defense to the entire action under a clear reservation of rights, it could recover defense costs allocable solely to noncovered claims for which there never was a potential for coverage. Furthermore, plaintiff insurer's burden of proof to defeat summary judgment was no greater than a preponderance of the evidence, since it was not seeking to terminate its duty to defend, but was only seeking a recovery of costs expended on non-covered claims.

Outcome

Plaintiff's petition for a writ of mandate was denied in order to allow defendant insurer to prove that the defense costs it sought to recover were not reasonably related to any actually or potentially covered claims.

Posted by: saimkhan at 11:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.

Procedural Posture

Appellant individual sought review of judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County (California), which sustained demurrers to appellants complaint, without leave to amend, because none of the three causes of action about alleged unfair pricing practices in Hawaiian hotels stated a viable cause of action against respondent Hawaiian hotels and others.

Overview: unclean hands jury instruction

Appellant individual filed a class action complaint against respondent Hawaiian hotels and others alleging that the rate charged to appellant for rooms was higher than a so-called "Kamaaina", local resident rate, that respondents conspired among themselves in furtherance of the discriminatory acts described in the first cause of action, and that respondents violated certain laws, statutes, rules and regulations and the policies of the State of California and engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and practices contrary to the public policies of the State of California. The trial court sustained respondents' demurrer to all three causes of action. On appeal, the court affirmed because there was no common law rule governing innkeeper pricing, except that it be reasonable. Accordingly, the first cause of action did not allege a viable cause of action under any statute or the common law, there could be no conspiracy unless there was a cause of action, and allegations of violations of unspecified laws and policies were similarly defective.

Outcome

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment that sustained respondent Hawaiian hotels and others' demurrer to appellant individual's price fixing allegations because none of the three alleged causes of action articulated a viable complaint inasmuch as there was no common law, constitutional, or statutory violation, and therefore no cognizable conspiracy.

Posted by: saimkhan at 11:07 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 278 words, total size 2 kb.

Procedural Posture

Defendant real estate investment company challenged the decree of the Superior Court of Riverside County (California), which quieted title in favor of plaintiff development company and refused the real estate investment company's motion for a new trial, in the development company's action to quiet title, recover possession, and foreclose agreements for the sale of certain parcels of land.

Overview: unruh act statute of limitations

In 1906, the parties executed six separate written agreements, whereby plaintiff sold 1154.45 acres of land to defendant. The intention of the parties was to subdivide the land and reconvey to third parties. Defendant paid an initial sum of $ 5,000 and the balance was to be paid to plaintiff in annual installments upon the subsequent sales of the land to third parties. Defendant did not comply with the agreements and plaintiff agreed to purchase the lands back. After the deed was placed in escrow, plaintiff refused to pay or take the deed. Defendant contended that it was entitled to a lien on the lands and the court agreed. Defendant had an equitable interest in the land, which it had the right to convey. The act of defendant of yielding possession of the lands to plaintiff constituted a sufficient consideration for the contract. Additionally, the actual conveyance of the deed into escrow by defendant and the promise by plaintiff to pay the price constituted a valid contract. The transaction was, in effect, an agreement to rescind the previously executed agreements of sale and to limit and settle the amount to be restored to defendant as a consequence of such rescission.

Outcome

The court reversed and remanded. Plaintiff was entitled to a decree declaring it to be the owner of the lands free from all claim or right of the defendant, except for a lien in favor of defendant for $ 1,500, plus interest.

Posted by: saimkhan at 11:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 313 words, total size 2 kb.

Procedural Posture

Plaintiff vendor appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County (California), which sustained the demurrer of defendant vendee to the vendor's complaint for breach of a contract to purchase realty. One of the best civil trial lawyers will take you through the entire process of filing and pursuing a non-criminal lawsuit.

Overview

The vendee contended that the agreement was lacking in essential elements and was fatally uncertain. Further, the vendee argued that no cause of action was stated. The court found this argument persuasive. The court found that the agreement did not indicate how the balance was to be paid. Further, the agreement did not provide an interest rate. Further, the court found that the security, if any, that was to be provided for the balance, whatever it was, was not specified. The court determined that these were all important items, yet agreement with respect to each of them was left open for future settlement. The court held that it was established from the language which the parties wrote into the blank space in the deposit receipt that their minds had not met upon these essential and material terms of the deal. The parties had agreed to agree upon terms in the future. The court found that there was no binding obligation upon the vendee to accept and pay for the land.

Outcome

The judgment for the vendee and against the vendor was affirmed.

Posted by: saimkhan at 10:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.

Procedural Posture

Plaintiff purchaser sought review of a judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) in favor of the purchaser for nominal damages only in an action by the purchaser against defendant seller for breach of agreement. The best corporate litigation attorney Los Angeles will help you in all corporation litigation matters.

Overview

The seller became obligated to sell to the purchaser a specified quantity of casing-head gasoline at a price per gallon fixed at a certain amount less than the retail price per gallon of a product known as Red Crown gasoline. Upon the refusal of the seller to comply with the provisions of the agreement in that regard, the purchaser commenced an action against the seller for the damages which the purchaser claimed had resulted from said alleged breach. The superior court found that the agreement was breached by the seller but rendered a judgment in favor of the purchaser for nominal damages only. The purchaser appealed. The court affirmed because the purchaser failed to prove the only damages which it was entitled to recover in the action, a judgment for nominal damages only was all that the trial court was authorized to render in its behalf. In addition, the court reasoned that where no evidence was offered as to the difference between the contract price and the market value, the purchaser was only entitled to nominal damages.

Outcome

The court affirmed the judgment.

Posted by: saimkhan at 10:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 241 words, total size 2 kb.

Procedural Posture

Shortly after dismissing its first complaint, plaintiff, the owner of an option to acquire a large tract of land from defendant landowner, filed a second complaint. The trial court granted an anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) motion filed by defendants, the holder of another option to acquire land from the landowner and its owners, and dismissed the complaint against those defendants. Plaintiff appealed.

Nakase Law Firm are San Diego labor lawyers

Overview

The court held that the trial court did not err in granting the other option holder's anti-SLAPP motion. The trial court correctly determined that the anti-SLAPP motion was timely filed. Because venue was changed and the parties incorporated the rules governing changes of venue into their stipulation transferring venue, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by starting the 60-day period anew upon its notice of receipt of the case. The trial court's determination in its previous attorney fees order that plaintiff's cause of action arose from the other option holder's exercise of constitutional rights acted as a direct estoppel and precluded relitigation of that issue. Even if there was no direct estoppel, the evidence demonstrated plaintiff's cause of action against the other option holder arose from the latter's exercise of constitutional rights. Additionally, the evidence demonstrated it was unlikely plaintiff would succeed on the merits of its complaint against the other option holder and its owners. A condition precedent on plaintiff's interest in the landowner's other lands, which interest served as the basis for plaintiff's complaint, had not been satisfied.

Outcome

The court affirmed the judgment.

Posted by: saimkhan at 07:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 264 words, total size 2 kb.