Procedural Posture

Plaintiff attorney challenged the decision of the Superior Court of Riverside County (California), which granted defendant theater operators' motion for a change of venue to the county of their residence.

Overview

The attorney filed a complaint against the theater operators for rescission, accounting, and damages. The theater operators filed a motion for change of venue to the county of their residence, which was granted. On review, the court found that the attorney's complaint was partly local and partly transitory. Therefore, the theater operators were entitled to the change of venue. The trial court's decision was affirmed.

Outcome: civil litigation lawyer

The trial court's decision that granted the theater operators' motion for change of venue was affirmed.

Procedural Posture

Defendant credit company sought review of a decision by the Superior Court of Sacramento County (California), which entered judgment in favor of plaintiff store owners in their action for the recovery of personal property and fixtures and for damages.

Overview

The store owners rented space and fixtures from the landlord in order to run their grocery business. The landlord owned money to the credit company, and the credit company seized the fixtures from the store owners' store based on the landlord's failure to pay. The store owners brought an action for the return of the fixtures and for damages. The lower court entered a judgment in favor of the store owners. Upon appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the creditor was not prejudiced by the amendment to the prayer of relief which struck the demand for the recovery of the property or its value in case delivery could not be had because the store owners had such a remedy under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 667. The court found that the loss of provisions and other merchandise by the store owners was directly caused by the acts of the credit company. The store owners were entitled to damages including compensation for the usable value of the property of which they were deprived, regardless of whether they hired other property to take its place or not.

Outcome

The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the store owners.

Posted by: saimkhan at 05:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 362 words, total size 3 kb.

Procedural Posture

In a proceeding in mandate the court was presented with the question of whether Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 489.220 allowed or forbid the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), hearing a defendant's motion to increase the amount of an attachment undertaking, to consider the probability that the plaintiff would not prevail in the action.

Overview

Plaintiff supplier sued defendant marble company for breach of contract, account stated, and open book account for money allegedly owed by defendant for marble and granite supplies defendant ordered and received from plaintiff. Defendant filed an answer to the verified complaint denying that a balance due existed in the amount alleged or that it breached any obligation to plaintiff. Plaintiff obtained a right to attach order directing the marshall to seize from defendant's place of business any and all inventory, equipment, materials, and supplies to the value of plaintiff's claim. Plaintiff gave an initial undertaking as required under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 489.220(a) and defendant filed an application to increase the amount of the attachment undertaking, to consider the probability that the plaintiff would not prevail in the action. The court denied plaintiff's application, holding that, under the construction urged by defendant, in situations where the remedy of attachment was most needed to protect a plaintiff from dissipation of the assets of a financially distressed defendant, the remedy would prove too costly to obtain or too costly to be of advantage.

Outcome: job description templates

The court discharged the alternative writ and denied defendant's peremptory writ of mandate for the reason that defendant marble company had no legitimate basis to ask the trial court increase plaintiff supplier's undertaking for the purpose of protecting against wrongful attachment.

Procedural Posture

Petitioner trustee filed a writ of mandate which challenged the denial of her motion by respondent Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California). Petitioner's motion had requested an order directing the issuance of a writ of execution because Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 917.1 did not provide for a stay of attorney fees pending an appeal.

Overview

In a breach of contract action, petitioner trustee's motion for summary judgment was granted and petitioner filed a motion for attorney fees pursuant to an attorney fees clause in the lease agreement. Petitioner sought to have the attorney fee award enforced and filed a writ of execution which the trial court denied due to plaintiff's appeal of the award pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 916(a). The court granted petitioner's writ and directed that respondent Superior Court of Los Angeles County issue a writ of execution, because the award of attorney fees was not ordinarily associated with litigation, and as such attorney fees were nonroutine costs and were not stayed upon appeal by Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 917.1. The court found that nonroutine costs like attorney fees and expert witness fees were not subject to the automatic stay provision of § 916(a), because they were not ordinarily part of costs awarded at trial and they usually involved an issue that was directly litigated as opposed to being incidental to the case.

Outcome

The court granted petitioner trustee's writ of mandate and directed respondent Superior Court of Los Angeles County to issue petitioner's writ of execution because attorney fees were nonroutine costs and were not stayed pending appeal.

Posted by: saimkhan at 05:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 561 words, total size 4 kb.

Procedural Posture

Appellant, an assignee of a purchaser, sought review of a decision from the Superior Court, Santa Clara County (California), which found in favor of respondent sellers in an action for specific performance or for damages for breach of contract.

Overview

A real estate broker was employed by a representative of a railroad company to purchase real property for a subsidiary. The real estate broker approached the sellers and asked for their consent to sell their property, which the sellers agreed. Thereafter, the real estate broker induced the sellers to sign an option agreement whereby they would sell their property to the purchaser. The real estate broker paid the consideration for the option, and the purchaser knew nothing of the transaction The sellers then rescinded the contract. The assignee, who was the railroad company's subsidiary and was assigned the purchaser's interest in the contract, brought an action for specific performance or for damages against the sellers. The trial court found in favor of the sellers, and the assignee appealed. The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the finding of the trial court that the real estate broker was acting in a dual capacity. The real estate broker's failure to notify the sellers of his dual capacity entitled them to rescind the contract and return the consideration before rights of innocent parties intervened.

Outcome: employer social media policy example

The court affirmed the decision of the trial court.

Procedural Posture

Petitioners, state, university, and clinics, filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the Superior Court of Los Angeles County's (California) denial of their motion to quash, under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 418.10, based on lack of "minimum contacts" and comity in a wrongful death action filed by the real party in interest, mother, for the death of her son.

Overview

The court denied the request of petitioners, state, university, and clinic, for writ of mandate, because a real party in interest, mother, established the requisite nexus between petitioners' forum state actions and her causes of action for purposes of personal jurisdiction over petitioners. The court found that petitioners "purposefully directed" activities at real party and her decedent son, both residents of California, through the initial recruitment of decedent son and his "re-recruitment" the following summer after his first stroke. The second recruitment allegedly included assurances and promises to decedent son and real party in interest of top quality medical care and advice for the son's medical problems. The court held petitioners could reasonably have expected to be subject to liability in California for injury resulting from these activities. The court concluded it would be fair and reasonable to subject petitioners to the jurisdiction of California in light of the inconvenience to them in defending an action in this state, when balanced against the interests of the real party in interest in suing locally and of the state in assuming jurisdiction.

Outcome

The court denied the petition for writ of mandate because real party in interest mother established the requisite nexus between the forum state actions of petitioners, state, university, and clinic, and her causes of action for wrongful death of her son, for purposes of personal jurisdiction over petitioners.

Posted by: saimkhan at 06:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 548 words, total size 4 kb.

Procedural Posture

Appellant stockholder challenged the judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County (California), in favor of respondent company in the stockholder's claim seeking specific performance. The stockholder sought to have stock which he alleged was illegally confiscated reissued to him.

Overview

Upon merger of two companies, which formed respondent company, it was agreed that the stockholders would receive stock from the newly formed company as well as the option to buy more stock. The stockholder alleged that he turned over his stock certificate in order to be issued the new stock, but that the new company confiscated the certificate and would not issue new stock, nor allow him his option to purchase more stock. The company argued that the stockholder had sold the stock and was no longer the rightful owner. The stockholder sought specific performance because, after he turned over his stock, the value had increased greatly and a monetary award would not adequately reimburse him. The court affirmed the lower court's denial of a jury trial because, where the case involved the application of the doctrines of equity and the granting of relief which could be obtained in a court of equity, and not elsewhere, the parties were not entitled to a jury trial. The court found that the lower court's finding that the stock had been sold was supported by substantial evidence. Because the agreement to sell had been executed, the statute of frauds was not applicable.

Outcome: failure to mitigate damages

The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the company in the stockholder's action for specific performance.

Procedural Posture

In a case arising from plaintiff subcontractor's effort to recover damages for cost overruns in a public works project, the subcontractor sought damages and attorney fees against defendant sureties on the payment bond. The Santa Clara County Superior Court, California, which earlier denied the sureties' summary judgment motion, granted their motion to reconsider and then granted their summary judgment motion. The subcontractor appealed.

Overview

The subcontractor argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant the sureties' motion for reconsideration because the sureties failed to meet the strict requirements of Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1008. It also contended that the trial court erred in finding the sureties were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The instant court agreed with the subcontractor that the sureties failed to satisfy the statutory requirements for reconsideration under § 1008. However, it also concluded that the trial court properly exercised its authority to reconsider the prior interim ruling and correct an error of law on a dispositive issue, thereby expediting the resolution of the parties' dispute. The instant court found that the jurisdictional limitation of § 1008(e) constituted an impermissible interference with the core functions of the judiciary, but it reformed the statute in order to promote the legislature's express goal of discouraging repetitious litigation. The sureties were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law with regard to the subcontractor's attorney fees. The general contractor's discharge under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998 did not necessarily exonerate the sureties.

Outcome

The judgment was reversed. In the interests of justice, the instant court directed the parties to bear their own costs on appeal.

Posted by: saimkhan at 06:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 543 words, total size 4 kb.