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estate broker paid the consideration for the option, and the purchaser knew nothing of the transaction The sellers then rescinded the contract.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.