Recently in Contract Law Category

In plaintiff's suit against the defendant-Mobile Park for refusing to permit the installation of a new mobile home in its mobile home park to replace an older one that plaintiff had inherited, trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's suit is affirmed where: 1) the complaint fails to state a cause of action for statutory violation; 2) the complaint fails to state a tort cause of action for interference with contract; 3) the complaint fails to state a contract cause of action; and 4) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend.   

Read Hoffman v. Smithwoods RV Park, LLC, No. H033464 [HTML]

Read Hoffman v. Smithwoods RV Park, LLC, No. H033464 [PDF]

Appellate Information

Filed November 19, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge MacAdams

Counsel
For Appellant:    Greene, Chauvel, Descalso, & Minoletti, Paul G. Minoletti, Susan J. Bayerd

For Appellee: Law Office of Anthony C. Rodriguez, Anthony C. Rodriguez

In plaintiffs' suit against the defendant to enjoin it from enforcing noncompete and nonsolicitation clauses in employment agreements used in California, trial court's ruling that the clauses were facially void under Business and Professions Code section 16600 and that their use violated California's Unfair Competition Law and that defendant's unclean hands defense and its cross-complaint for unfair competition failed as a matter of law is affirmed where: 1) the trial court properly determined that the clauses were void as a matter of law, that no defense applied and that the cross-complaint failed to state a cause of action; and 2) trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a permanent injunction and costs   

Read Dowell v. Pacesetter, Inc., No. B201439 [HTML]

Read Dowell v. Pacesetter, Inc., No. B201439 [PDF]

Appellate Information

Filed November 19, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Todd

Counsel
For Appellant:  Feldman Gale, James A. Gale and Todd M. Malynn

For Appellee:  Steptoe & Johnson, Mark A. Neubauer, Rebecca Edelson and Carla A. Veltman

In plaintiff's action against the Ford Motor Credit Company (Ford) claiming that Ford's billing practices under a retail installment sales contract in charging late fees is prohibited by the Rees-Levering Motor Vehicle Sales and Finance Act, and actionable under Unfair Competition Law and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, dismissal of the suit is affirmed where: 1) Ford's conduct of charging successive late fees for successive late payments does not violate Civil Code section 2982(k)'s prohibition on charging more than one late fee per delinquent installment; 2) plaintiff cannot allege Ford's billing practice is an unfair business practice within the meaning of UCL because the alleged injury is one plaintiff reasonably could have avoided; and 3) although Ford was the prevailing party, it cannot recover its attorney's fees pursuant to the Rees-Levering's reciprocal attorney's fees provision because the alleged Rees-Levering violation was merely a predicate to the UCL claims, and a prevailing defendant cannot recover attorney's fees under the UCL.   

Read Davis v. Ford Motor Credit Co. , No. B204047 [HTML]

Read Davis v. Ford Motor Credit Co. , No. B204047 [PDF]

Appellate Information

Filed November 19, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Klein

Counsel
For Appellant:  Levy, Ram & Olson, Arthur D. Levy, Erica L. Craven; The Harris Law Firm, Aurora D. Harris

For Appellee:  Severson & Werson, Jan T. Chilton, Mark Joseph Kenney, Regina J. McClendon and Joshua E. Whitehair

In an action by a Taiwanese corporation and its California subsidiary seeking damages for misappropriation of intellectual property involving a Design Services Agreement of a silicon-germanium power amplifier for use in wireless networking devices, trial court's order quashing service of summons is reversed where: 1) a refusal by California courts to exercise jurisdiction cannot be justified by the mere fact that a claim arising from California contacts is prosecuted by a nonresident; and 2) subjecting the defendant to local jurisdiction comports with fair play and substantial justice as, here the two Taiwanese defendants engaged in conduct in California, and caused effects in California, that made it readily foreseeable that they would be haled into court here in the event of a dispute of the present type.     

Read Epic Communications, Inc. v. Richwave Tech., Inc., No. H032378 [HTML]

Read Epic Communications, Inc. v. Richwave Tech., Inc., No. H032378 [PDF]

Filed November 17, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Rushing

Counsel
For Appellant: Greenberg Traurig, J. James Li, Cindy Hamilton, David Perez

For Appellee: Wang, Hartman, Gibbs & Cauley, Richard F. Cauley, Peter O. Huang

In a dispute over whether plaintiff's insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify plaintiff in a trademark infringement action under an "advertising injury" policy, summary judgment for insurance company is affirmed as the prior publication exclusion in the policy bars coverage for trademark infringement in this case. 

Read Kim Seng Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York, No. B208699 [HTML]

Read Kim Seng Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York, No. B208699 [PDF]

Filed November 13, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Mosk

Counsel

For Appellant:  Law Offices of Mark L. Sutton, Mark L. Sutton

For Appellee:  Musick, Peeler & Garrett, Cheryl A. Orr, David A. Tartaglio; Bates & Carey, Richard H. Nicolaides, Jr., Jonathan T. Viner, Daniel I. Graham, Jr., and Agelo L. Reppas

In plaintiffs' protest to their termination as franchised dealers of Volkswagen of America, Inc., and Audi of America, Inc., dismissal of the protest by the New Motor Vehicle Board (Board) is affirmed where: 1) Vehicle Code section 3050.2(b) is constitutional on its face and as applied; and 2) substantial evidence support the Board's findings of plaintiff's failure to comply with authorized discovery.   

Read Nader Auto. Group, LLC. v. New Motor Vehicle Bd., No. C059144 [HTML]

Read Nader Auto. Group, LLC. v. New Motor Vehicle Bd., No. C059144 [PDF]

Filed November 9, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Robie

Counsel

For Appellant:  Law Offices of Michael T. Morrissey and Michael T. Morrissey

For Appellee:  Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro, Allen Resnick, Neil C. Erickson and Amy Lerner Hill

In plaintiff-developer's breach of contract and negligence case against a consultant hired by a county to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR), district court's sustaining of defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's complaint is affirmed as the balance of the factors militates against a conclusion that a consultant owes a duty of care to a project applicant in the timely completion of a draft EIR. 

Read Lake Almanor Assoc., LLP. v. Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc., No. A122563 [PDF]

Read Lake Almanor Assoc., LLP. v. Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc., No. A122563 [HTML]

Filed October 30, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Simons

Counsel

For Appellant:  William C. Neasham, Patricia Kramer, Jacob D. Heninger, and Chad A. Vierra

For Appellee:  Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, George J. Ziser, Bridget Childs, Jeffry A. Miller, and Matthew B. Stucky

In plaintiff's action against her insurer over disputes arising from a fire of her commercial premises, district court's ruling sustaining defendant's demurrer to a cause of action under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Business and Professions Code section 17200, is vacated and remanded with directions to reinstate the cause of action as an insurer connected with conduct that would violate Insurance Code section 790.03 can also give rise to a private civil cause of action under the UCL.  

Read Zhang v. Sup. Ct., No. E047207 [PDF]

Read Zhang v. Sup. Ct., No. E047207 [HTML]

Filed October 29, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Richli

Counsel

For Appellant: Viau & Kwasniewski, Gary K. Kwasniewski and Jeanette L. Viau

For Appellee:  N/A

In plaintiff's case against the state for breach of a lease, trial court's postjudgment order denying defendant's request to vacate that portion of a judgment awarding postjudgment interest against state at a rate of 10 percent is reversed and remanded as it gives effect to that portion of a judgment awarding postjudgment interest which is claimed to be void.  Furthermore, the award in excess of 7 percent interest is void and thus subject to collateral attack because it constitutes relief which the court had no power to grant.     

Read Read 311 S. Spring St. Co. v. Dep't. of Gen. Serv., No. B212165 [PDF]

Read 311 S. Spring St. Co. v. Dep't. of Gen. Serv., No. B212165 [HTML]

Filed October 28, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Mallano

Counsel

For Appellant:  Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, James M. Schiavenza, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Joel A. Davis, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Donna M. Dean, Deputy Attorney General

For Appellee:  Gilchrist & Rutter, Frank Gooch III, Phillipa L. Altmann; Gilbert Dreyfuss, Inc., and Gilbert Dreyfuss

In plaintiffs' action against various defendants including a building contractor involved in the construction of their retirement home, the judgment of the trial court is modified as the corporation that acted as the building contractor on the project violated the California's licensure requirements and, based on that violation, the homeowners are entitled under Business and Professions Code section 7031(b) to recover all compensation paid to the contractor for the unlicensed work. Furthermore, as a matter of statutory construction, the recovery authorized by section 7031(b) may not be reduced by an unlicensed contractor's claim of offset for materials and services provided in connection with the unlicensed work.   

Read White v. Cridlebaugh, No. F053843 [PDF]

Read White v. Cridlebaugh, No. F053843 [HTML]

Filed October 20, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Dawson

Counsel

For Appellant:  Ana M. Soares

For Appellee:  No Appearance