Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

After experiencing problems with his Mercedes-Benz that required multiple repair attempts, MacQuiddy filed suit under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code, 1790) and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. 2301), seeking a refund for the car and a civil penalty for the alleged willful violation of the Act. Mercedes-Benz admitted it had not been able to conform the car to the applicable warranties within the time frames set forth in the Act and that it had not yet replaced the car or made restitution, but asserted it would offer to reimburse MacQuiddy as required under the Act. MacQuiddy subsequently rejected a statutory offer to compromise in which Mercedes-Benz offered to repurchase the car for an amount consistent with the Act, and to pay MacQuiddy’s attorney fees and costs incurred up to that point. A jury found Mercedes-Benz did not willfully fail to comply with the Act. The court of appeal affirmed in part, but reversed an order denying MacQuiddy costs and awarding costs to Mercedes-Benz. On remand, the court is to permit MacQuiddy to file a new Memorandum of Costs, and to recalculate such costs without regard to Mercedes-Benz’s section 998 offer. An order denying attorney fees was affirmed. View "MacQuiddy v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC" on Justia Law

Gray1 CPB, LLC (Gray1), obtained a judgment against defendants SCC Acquisitions and Bruce Elieff. Almost two years later, defendants paid the amount of the outstanding judgment and accrued interest with a cashier's check. In the interim, Gray1 allegedly incurred more than $3 million in attorney fees in an effort to enforce its judgment. The fees were largely incurred in litigating a separate action against Elieff in an effort to untangle what Gray1 asserted were a number of fraudulent transactions resulting in the placement of fraudulent liens on Elieff's real property as part of a scheme to insulate Elieff's properties from the judgment. According to Gray1, it was only when it appeared the separate action was imminently headed toward resolution in Gray1's favor that defendants gave Gray1 the cashier's check to pay the judgment. Gray1 did not immediately cash the check. It held onto the check long enough for its attorneys to file a motion for postjudgment costs, including attorney fees. Once deposited, the issuing bank honored the check. A motion for postjudgment costs (including attorney fees) must "be made before the judgment is satisfied in full." The trial court denied Gray1's motion for postjudgment costs, finding the motion was made after the judgment had been fully satisfied. Gray1 appealed. The issue for the Court of Appeal's review was whether the judgment paid with a cashier's check was deemed satisfied. Because Gray1's motion for attorney fees incurred in a separate action to enforce its judgment in the underlying matter was not filed before defendants paid Gray1 with a certified cashier's check accepted by Gray1 and in an amount in excess of the full judgment (including awarded attorney fees and accrued interest), Gray1's motion was untimely and properly denied by the superior court. View "Gray1 CPB, LLC v. SCC Acquisitions, Inc." on Justia Law

Solares filed an unfair competition (Bus. & Prof. Code, 17200) class action on behalf of employees who are or were employed by PSAV, which provides audio-visual services to hotels within the Century Corridor Property Business Improvement District adjoining Los Angeles International Airport. They allege that PSAV collects from customers a separately designated “service charge,” “delivery charge,” facility charge,” “gratuity,” “administrative fee,” or other such charge that “customers might reasonably believe . . . were for the class member/employees’ services.” PSAV allegedly failed to pay the separately-designated charges it collects to its employees in violation of the Hotel Service Charge Reform Ordinance in the Los Angeles Municipal Code. The trial court denied a motion to dismiss the audio-visual workers’ suit. The court of appeal reversed. The ordinance applies only to those hotel workers who would have received a gratuity for their services but for the imposition of a service charge that hotel customers believed was in lieu of a gratuity. The complaint did not allege that Solares and the proposed class are within the class of hotel workers who traditionally relied on gratuities. View "Audio Visual Servs. Grp., Inc. v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Cross-defendant Michael Tope appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of First American Title Insurance Company in a cross-action to recover money under a title insurance policy after default on a real estate loan to purchase and rehabilitate a home. The property was subject to a notice of abatement action issued by San Joaquin County requiring repair of defects in the rehabilitation of the residence. The subject of the suit was that First American allegedly breached the title insurance policy by failing to provide coverage for the notice of abatement action. Plaintiffs, investors in a real estate loan, sued defendants and cross-complainants Stockton Mortgage Real Estate Loan Servicing Corporation (SMRELS), Stockton Mortgage, Inc., Stockton Management & Development, Inc., and Ross Cardinalli Jr. (collectively cross-complainants) for damages arising from cross-complainants' alleged failure to follow up on the status of the release of a notice of abatement action. Cross-complainants, in turn, initiated this suit against First American, Alliance Title Company, and two of Alliance's employees for damages, indemnity, and declaratory relief arising out of First American's refusal to provide coverage under the title insurance policy, and Alliance's alleged representation, on behalf of First American, that it would obtain a release of the notice of abatement action prior to the close of escrow. First American moved for summary judgment mainly on grounds that the notice of abatement action was not covered under the title insurance policy, cross-complainants were not insured under the title insurance policy, and the preliminary title report relied on by cross-complainants was not a contract. The trial court granted First American's motion and entered summary judgment in its favor. Cross-complainants appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. View "Stockton Mortgage, Inc. v. Tope" on Justia Law

In July 2012, plaintiff-respondent Ernesto Ruiz filed a putative class action complaint alleging defendant-appellant Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. failed to pay Ruiz and other employees overtime and other wages for all hours worked, provide required meal and rest breaks, provide accurate and complete wage statements, reimburse business expenses, and pay final wages in a timely manner. Moss Bros. appealed an order denying its petition to compel arbitration of the employment-related and putative class action, representative, and Ruiz's individual claims. The trial court denied the petition on the ground Moss Bros. did not meet its burden of proving the parties had an agreement to arbitrate the controversy. No statement of decision was requested or issued, but the court implicitly found Moss Bros. did not present sufficient evidence to support a finding that an electronic signature on its proffered arbitration agreement was "the act of Ruiz." After its review, the Court of Appeal concluded Moss Bros. did not present sufficient evidence to support a finding that Ruiz electronically signed the 2011 agreement. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the order denying the petition. View "Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief against defendants in this action. But the complaint explicitly acknowledged it was “ancillary to” contemplated private arbitration of disputes arising out of the parties’ contractual relationship. The trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and the parties stipulated to stay the action “pending arbitration.” Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this action (purportedly without prejudice) after the claims were submitted to an arbitrator for final resolution and the arbitrator had issued an interim award in favor of defendants. The interim arbitral award was made final without substantive revision, except for adding plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs incurred in the arbitration. The trial court denied defendants’ motion to vacate the dismissal, reasoning that the arbitration and this case were separate proceedings and that plaintiffs had dismissed this action before trial commenced. After its review, the Court of Appeal disagreed with this reasoning and reversed: this lawsuit was based on the same causes of action submitted to the arbitrator; it differed only in the remedies sought. Once the hearing on the merits of the parties’ dispute commenced at the arbitration, it was too late for plaintiffs to dismiss this action without prejudice and thereby avoid an attempt by defendants to recover attorney fees as the prevailing party in this action. View "Mesa Shopping Center-East v. O Hill" on Justia Law

Hyundai Amco America, Inc. and S3H, Inc. entered into a subcontractor services agreement. According to the agreement, disputes would be subject to arbitration. Hyundai Amco sued S3H for breaching the agreement, as well as for other related causes of action. S3H filed a motion to compel arbitration; the trial court denied the motion on the ground that S3H had failed to allege: (1) it demanded arbitration, and (2) Hyundai Amco refused. S3H appealed, and the Court of Appeal reversed: under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, a party requesting a court order for arbitration must prove the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate, and that the other party refuses to arbitrate their controversy. S3H unquestionably established the existence of the parties’ written agreement containing an arbitration provision; Hyundai Amco did not dispute this fact. The Court held that S3H was not required to make a formal demand for arbitration because Hyundai Amco’s filing of a complaint invoked the protections and procedures of the court system, and thus was an effective refusal of arbitration. S3H met its burden under section 1281.2. View "Hyundai Amco v. S3H, Inc." on Justia Law

Pacific Corporate Group Holdings, LLC (PCGH) sued one of its former employees, Thomas Keck, seeking to collect on a promissory note. Keck defended against the action by claiming that any money that he owed PCGH was offset by monies that PCGH owed him. Keck also filed a cross-complaint against PCGH seeking damages for unpaid bonus and severance payments that he claimed were due to him pursuant to two employment agreements. In a special verdict, the jury found that PCGH owed Keck $270,547.95 under the terms of a 2006 employment agreement. PCGH filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or for new trial on the ground that there was no substantial evidence to support the jury's finding that the parties entered into the 2006 Agreement. The trial court denied PCGH's motion. Keck filed a motion for additur, or in the alternative, for a new trial on damages, on the ground that the jury had awarded inadequate damages in light of the bonus and severance provisions in the 2006 Agreement. The trial court granted Keck's motion, and issued an additur and conditional order granting a new trial on damages. PCGH refused to consent to the additur, and thus, the trial court's order directing a new trial on damages became effective. Both parties filed motions for attorney fees, which the court denied. PCGH filed two appeals seeking reversal of the judgment: the trial court's order denying its motion for new trial and JNOV; and the trial court's order granting Keck's motion for additur, or, in the alternative, a new trial on damages; and the trial court's order denying its motion for attorney fees. Keck appealed the trial court's order denying his motion for attorney fees. The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court's order granting a new trial on damages resulted in a vacatur of the underlying judgment, and therefore, the Court lacked appellate jurisdiction to consider PCGH's appeals, the trial court's order denying its motion for new trial, and the trial court's order denying attorney fees. Furthermore, the Court concluded that it lacked appellate jurisdiction to consider Keck's appeal of the trial court's order denying attorney fees. The Court affirmed both the trial court's order denying PCGH's motion for JNOV and the trial court's order granting Keck's motion for additur, or in the alternative, a new trial on damages. The case was remanded back to the trial court with directions to conduct a new trial on damages and any other necessary proceedings.View "Pacific Corporate Group Holdings v. Keck" on Justia Law

Five Corners Rialto, LLC obtained a construction loan from Vineyard Bank to develop a 70-unit townhome project. Thomas DelPonti and David Wood, principals of Five Corners, guaranteed the loan. Five Corners contracted with general contractor Advent, Inc. to build the project in two phases. Everything went according to schedule for the first 18 months. However, when Phase I of the Project was nearly complete, the Bank stopped funding approved payment applications, preventing completion and sale of the Phase I units, which, in turn, caused Five Corners to default on the loan. The Bank reached an agreement with Five Corners, requiring Advent to finish Phase I so the units could be sold at auction, and promising to pay the subcontractors if they discounted their bills and released any liens. Advent paid the subcontractors out of its own pocket in order to keep the project lien-free, so the auction could proceed. However, the Bank foreclosed against Five Corners. Advent filed an unbonded stop notice. The Bank (through its assignee California Bank and Trust), sued Five Corners and the Guarantors under various theories for the deficiency following a Trustee’s Sale of the Deed of Trust, while Advent sued the developer and the Bank for restitution for the amounts it paid out of pocket. The cases were consolidated and tried. Advent amended its complaint to conform to proof to add causes of action for breach of the assigned contract and promissory estoppel. The trial court awarded judgment in favor of Advent on these causes of action. The court denied Advent judgment for enforcement of its stop notice claim. In the Bank’s action against the Guarantors, the court found that the Bank breached the loan contract, exonerating the Guarantors. The court awarded attorneys’ fees to Advent and the Guarantors. The Bank appealed the judgments against it; Advent appealed the portion of the judgment denying enforcement of the stop notice. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed.View "Cal. Bank & Trust v. Del Ponti" on Justia Law

In 2011, San Diego County updated its general plan wherein it issued a program environmental impact report (PEIR), and adopted various related mitigation measures. The Sierra Club sought, in a petition for writ of mandate, to enforce one mitigation measure adopted by the County, the Climate Change Mitigation Measure CC-1.2: the preparation of a climate change action plan with "more detailed greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions reduction [GHG] targets and deadlines" and "comprehensive and enforceable GHG emissions reductions measures that will achieve" specified quantities of GHG reductions by the year 2020. However, the Sierra Club alleged that instead of preparing a climate change action plan that included comprehensive and enforceable GHG emission reduction measures that would achieve GHG reductions by 2020, the County prepared a climate action plan (CAP) as a plan-level document that expressly "does not ensure reductions." The County also developed associated guidelines for determining significance (Thresholds). The court granted the petition, concluding that the County's CAP did not comply with the requirements of Mitigation Measure CC-1.2 and thus violated CEQA. The court found that the CAP did not contain enforceable GHG reduction measures that would achieve the specified emissions reductions. The County appealed, asserting: (1) the statute of limitations barred the claim that the mitigation measures were not enforceable; (2) the CAP met the requirements of Mitigation Measure CC-1.2; and (3) that the trial court erred in finding that a supplemental EIR was required. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed.View "Sierra Club v. Co. of San Diego" on Justia Law