Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Western filed suit against La Cumbre for breach of an indemnity agreement where Mark J. Melchiori signed the agreement on La Cumbre's behalf as a managing member. In actuality, he was the managing member of La Cumbre's manager, MIC. MIC did not have actual authority to execute the indemnity agreement on La Cumbre's behalf. The trial court granted summary judgment for Western. The court concluded that Melchiori's signature binds La Cumbre pursuant to former Corporations Code section 17157, subdivision (d) (now section 17703.01, subdivision (d)), provided that the other party to the agreement does not have actual knowledge of the person's lack of authority to execute the agreement on behalf of La Cumbre. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Western Surety Co. v. La Cumbre Office Partners" on Justia Law

The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (Department) issued a 15-day suspension of an off-sale general license held by the Garfield Beach CVS LLC Longs Drug Stores California LLC, doing business as CVS Pharmacy Store 9174 (CVS) after an administrative law judge found the store clerk sold alcohol to a minor decoy. The Alcohol Beverage Control Appeals Board (Appeals Board) reversed the suspension based on California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 141 (Rule 141) that allowed a law enforcement agency to use an underage decoy only "in a 'fashion that promotes fairness.'" In the Appeals Board's view, the suspension was unfair because the minor decoy did not respond about his age when the store clerk looked at his driver license and remarked, "I would never have guessed it, you must get asked a lot." The Department challenged the reversal of the license suspension, contending it correctly interpreted Rule 141 to require minor decoys to answer only questions about their ages. Based on the administrative law judge's finding in this case that the store clerk's remark constituted a statement rather than a question, the Department argued its decision was legally correct and supported by substantial evidence. The Appeals Board countered Rule 141 was ambiguous and resulted "in confusion and manifest unfairness." And CVS argued the Department's interpretation of Rule 141 unfairly allowed decoys to remain silent in the face of mistaken statements about age. According to CVS, affirming the license suspension would allow deceptive and misleading silence in the face of a store clerk's explicit mistake about the minor decoy's age. The Court of Appeal concluded Rule 141 was not ambiguous in requiring minor decoys to answer truthfully only questions about their ages. Because substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge's factual finding the decoy in this case was not questioned about his age, the Court determined as a matter of law that Rule 141 did not provide CVS with a defense to the accusation it sold an alcoholic beverage to an underage buyer. Accordingly, the Court reversed the Appeals Board's decision. View "Dept. of Alcoholic Bev. Control v. Alcoholic Bev. Control App. Bd." on Justia Law

Swart is a small family-owned corporation, incorporated in Iowa, with its place of business and headquarters in Iowa. At issue is whether the franchise tax applies to Swart, whose sole connection with California is a 0.2 percent ownership interest in a manager-managed California limited liability company investment fund (Cypress LLC). The court concluded that passively holding a 0.2 percent ownership interest, with no right of control over the business affairs of the LLC, does not constitute “doing business” in California within the meaning of section 23101. In this case, Swart was not doing business in California based solely on its minority ownership interest in Cypress LLC. The court explained that the Attorney General’s conclusion that a taxation election could transmute Swart into a general partner for purposes of the franchise tax, and that the business activities of Cypress can therefore be imputed to Swart, is not supported by citation to appropriate legal authority and defies a commonsense understanding of what it means to be “doing business.” Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Swart Enterprises v. Franchise Tax Bd." on Justia Law

Dr. Hoang, a dentist, died in 2010. Dr. Khan agreed to buy Hoang’s practice. The contract allows the prevailing party to be awarded fees if “any litigation . . . is commenced . . . concerning its terms, interpretation or enforcement or the rights and duties of any party.” Two years later, Khan filed suit for breach of contract, fraud, concealment, negligent misrepresentation, and rescission. Khan alleged failure to comply with warranties, including that none of the practice records contained any untrue statement or material omission; that the practice was in compliance with laws and regulations; that patients and insurance companies had been properly billed; that the practice had not billed for services for which the practice was not entitled to compensation; that the practice had not, as a usual practice, waived co-payments or deductibles; and the practice had not increased any employee’s salary after April 2010. The estate counter claimed that Khan had failed to remit accounts receivable and to provide proper accounting. Before trial, Khan voluntarily dismissed her entire complaint without prejudice. The court found for Khan on all causes of action in the counter-complaint. The estate obtained an award of attorney fees as the prevailing party under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032(a)(4). The court of appeal remanded. Section 1717(b)(2), generally bars the award of fees after a pretrial voluntary dismissal for defense of contract claims, but the agreement's fee provision was broad enough to cover fees for defense against tort actions. View "Khan v. Shim" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a class action against Banana Republic, a clothing retailer, alleging that signs in its store windows advertising a 40 percent off sale were false or misleading because they did not disclose that the discount applied only to certain items. Plaintiffs cited the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, 17200), the False Advertising Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, 17500), and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, 1750) and produced evidence that, in reliance on the advertising, they were lured to shop at certain stores and selected items for purchase. As the items were being rung up, plaintiffs were told for the first time that the discount did not apply to their chosen merchandise. Having waited in line and out of embarrassment, they bought some (but not all) of the items, without the discount. The trial court granted Banana Republic summary judgment, concluding that plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue that they suffered injury in fact. The court of appeal reversed. Plaintiffs raised a triable issue whether they lost “money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e., economic injury,” and whether “that economic injury was the result of, i.e., caused by, the unfair business practice or false advertising.” View "Veera v. Banana Republic, LLC" on Justia Law

Thompson founded a consulting firm (WREG) to advise clients in a niche internet infrastructure industry called “colocation.” WREG sometimes, but not always, performed services that required a real estate broker’s license. Because Thompson did not have a broker’s license when he founded WREG, he decided to collaborate with Asimos. Thompson and Asimos adapted a standard form independent contractor agreement typically used by real estate brokers and agents, which turned out to be a poor fit. Disputes arose concerning alleged underpayment of commissions and alleged failure to comply with regulatory requirements governing real estate brokerage. They sued each other on various breach of contract and business tort theories. Thompson obtained a substantial damages award, plus an award of attorney fees. The court of appeal affirmed court’s rejection of all of Asimos’s claims against Thompson and its determination of liability against Asimos for breach of contract, unfair competition, and trademark infringement, but vacated the damages award and remanded for recalculation against Asimos on Thompson’s claims for unfair competition and trademark infringement. View "Thompson v. Asimos" on Justia Law

In early 2008, plaintiff-appellant Taghi Alereza agreed to help his nephew Habib (Bobby) purchase a business consisting of a gas station and convenience store in Sacramento. They planned to have Bobby run the business. Alereza’s role involved nothing more than providing the initial purchase funds and a $100,000 note secured by his residence. The sole issue in this appeal centered on whether escrow company Chicago Title Company (Chicago Title) owed a legal duty of care to Alereza, who was not a party to the escrow nor mentioned as a third party beneficiary in the escrow instructions. Chicago Title admitted its employee negligently listed the wrong name of the insured (the purchaser of the gas station business) when securing a new certificate of insurance for the business. “This was the first of a series of missteps by several persons that eventually led to Alereza giving a personal guarantee to save the gas station business.” Claiming damages for losses incurred after giving his personal guarantee, Alereza sued Chicago Title. The trial court granted Chicago Title’s motion for nonsuit, and Alereza appealed. The Court of Appeal concluded Chicago Title did not owe a duty of care to Alereza because he was not a party to the escrow, not mentioned in the escrow instructions as a third party beneficiary, and did not sustain his losses as a direct result of the escrow company’s negligence. View "Alereza v. Chicago Title Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs 569 East County Boulevard, LLC, and others filed an action against numerous entities and individuals. Plaintiffs' complaint named Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (BAD) as a defendant and alleged a single cause of action against BAD for unlawful interference with prospective economic advantage. BAD moved to strike the action pursuant to the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute. After BAD's anti-SLAPP motion was granted, it sought attorney fees and costs in a total amount of $152,529.15 pursuant to section 425.16, subdivision (c)(1). Plaintiffs did not contest defendant's entitlement to a fees and costs award, but argued the amount sought was exorbitant. The court found BAD was entitled to attorney fees and costs incurred for the successful anti-SLAPP motion, but awarded a reduced amount of $30,752.86. BAD appealed that order, arguing the reduced award was an abuse of discretion. Upon reconsideration after ordering a rehearing in this matter, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. View "569 East County etc. v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc." on Justia Law

Katana, a closely held corporation, is a software development company. Mark and Karen Goles appeal from an order specifying $139,666.67 as the buyout value of their 36.7% minority shareholder interest in Katana pursuant to Corporations Code section 2000, subd. (c). The court construed the order as an alternative decree which is appealable pursuant to section 2000, subdivision (c). The Goles contend that the buyout order must be reversed because the trial court's determination of the fair value of the Goles's shareholder interest was erroneous as a matter of law. The court reversed the judgment and ordered the trial court, on remand, to obtain a majority fair value appraisal that takes into account the derivative claims and does not use a lack-of-control discount. In the alternative, the trial court may take evidence on the derivative claims and make a de novo determination of the fair value of the Goles's shareholder interest, consistent with section 2000. View "Goles v. Sawhney" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Medical Marijuana, Inc. (MMI) and HempMeds PX, LLC (HempMeds) (jointly "the plaintiffs") sued defendants ProjectCBD.com (Project CBD), Martin Lee, and Aaron Cantu. Project CBD appealed a trial court's order denying their special motion to strike1 counts 1 and 3 of the complaint against them, which asserted causes of action for libel and false light. Plaintiff MMI held investments in numerous industrial hemp businesses, including plaintiff HempMeds. HempMeds manufactures and sells RSHO, a product containing cannabidiol (CBD) derived from the industrial hemp plant. MMI also holds interests in KannaLife Sciences, Inc. Per the first amended complaint, Jason Cranford, another defendant, resigned from KannaLife's Board of Directors and then began competing with MMI and HempMeds by selling CBD products through his Colorado medical marijuana dispensary, Rifle Mountain, LLC (Rifle Mountain - also named as a defendant in the case). Project CBD was a California nonprofit organization that identifies itself as an organization dedicated to promoting and publicizing research regarding CBD and other components of the cannabis plant. Project CBD had samples of plaintiffs’ cannabis product tested, and released results on their Facebook page. Plaintiffs contended that those results and other statements made about their products were false. On appeal, the Project CBD defendants contended that the trial court incorrectly determined that plaintiffs demonstrated a probability of prevailing on counts 1 and 3 against defendants. The Project CBD defendants also claimed that the trial court erred in concluding that plaintiffs were not limited public figures, meaning that the plaintiffs would not have to demonstrate that the Project CBD defendants acted with actual malice in publishing an article about the plaintiffs, and/or that the court erred in concluding in the alternative that the plaintiffs demonstrated that the Project CBD defendants acted with actual malice in publishing the article. The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court's ruling with respect to the Project CBD defendants' anti-SLAPP motion directed at counts 1 and 3 was correct, albeit on grounds different from those relied on by the trial court. The Court therefore affirmed the trial court's order and remanded the matter for further proceedings. View "Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. ProjectCBD.com" on Justia Law