Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

After completing MoneyGram's Transfer Send Form, Fisher, a 63-year-old veteran with poor eyesight, initiated Moneygram money transfers at California Walmart stores, one for $2,000 to a Georgia recipient, and another for $1,530 to a Baton Rouge recipient. The funds were delivered to the intended recipients. Fisher never turned over the Send Form to read the Terms and Conditions, which included an arbitration requirement. He would have been unable to read the six-point print without a magnifying glass. Fisher sued MoneyGram, claiming that the transfers were induced by a “scammer,” and that MoneyGram knew its system was used by scammers but failed to warn or protect customers; MoneyGram’s service was used frequently in fraudulent transactions because the money was immediately available at a Walmart store or other MoneyGram outlet. Other services (bank transfers) place a temporary hold on funds to discourage fraudulent transactions. Fisher alleged MoneyGram had been the subject of an FTC injunction, requiring it to maintain a program to protect its consumers.Fisher’s class action complaint cited the unfair competition law. The court of appeal affirmed the denial of MoneyGram’s petition to compel arbitration. The provision was unenforceable as procedurally and substantively unconscionable, and not severable. The small font, placement, and “take it or leave it nature” were “indications” of procedural unconscionability. The one-year limitations period, a requirement that any plaintiff pay arbitration costs and fees, and waiver of attorneys’ fees were substantively unconscionable “in the aggregate.” View "Fisher v. MoneyGram International, Inc." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed the unanimous jury's finding in favor of Underwood Ranches in an action for breach of contract and fraud, as well as the award of $13.3 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages. Huy Fong, a business that produces Sriracha hot sauce, contracted with Underwood Ranches, a pepper farmer, to purchase peppers, which resulted in a 28 year relationship for the parties. For the first 10 years, the parties executed written agreements specifying the price per pound and volume to be supplied. Thereafter, the parties dealt with each other informally with oral agreements.The court concluded that there is more than ample evidence to support a finding of fraud based on fraudulent concealment and affirmative misrepresentation; the jury's findings are consistent and easily reconciled where, read together, the jury found that the parties had an ongoing contractual relationship that included the 2017 jalapeño growing season; the court rejected Huy Fong's contention that the trial court abdicated its responsibility to sit as a 13th juror in ruling on its motion for a new trial; the court upheld the $10 million punitive damage award; and, because the court affirmed the judgment against Huy Fong, it is unnecessary for it to consider Underwood Ranch's appeal. View "Huy Fong Foods, Inc. v. Underwood Ranches, LP" on Justia Law

A jury awarded plaintiffs, the adult children and heirs of songwriter Terry Gilkyson, $350,000 based on its finding that Disney, and its music publishing subsidiary Wonderland, had failed to pay contractually required royalties in connection with certain limited uses of "The Bare Necessities" and several other Gilkyson-composed songs in home entertainment releases of Walt Disney Productions's 1967 animated film The Jungle Book. The trial court then awarded an additional $699,316.40 as damages for the period subsequent to the jury's verdict through the duration of the songs’ copyrights. Both parties appealed.The Court of Appeal agreed with Disney that interpretation of its agreements with Gilkyson is subject to de novo review; Gilkyson's right to receive royalties from exploitation of the mechanical reproduction rights in "The Bare Necessities" and other songs he wrote for The Jungle Book was dependent on Wonderland receiving payment for such exploitation; and the express language of the contracts granted Disney sole discretion to decide how to exploit the material, including whether a fee should be charged for Disney's own use of the material in home entertainment releases. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to enter a judgment in favor of Disney. View "Gilkyson v. Disney Enterprises, Inc." on Justia Law

Hue Thi Dong Mai was sued for breach of contract by a prospective purchaser of the apartment building she owned, brought about because of fraudulent conduct on the part of Mai’s real estate agent. The prospective purchaser ultimately dismissed the breach of contract action, and Mai invoked the “tort of another” doctrine in suing, by cross-complaint, the agent and her employer to recover the attorney’s fees Mai incurred defending the contract action. In the course of that litigation, Mai’s counsel failed to appreciate the difference between presenting a claim for attorney’s fees as damages at trial, and one for fees as costs of suit in a posttrial motion. By its own admission, the trial court was equally confused. The cross-defendants submitted, as dispositive authority, the Court of Appeal decision in Copenbarger v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism, Inc., 29 Cal.App.5th 1 (2018). Figuring it was bound by Copenbarger, the trial court decided it had no discretion to guide the case to what it believed was a fair resolution. Urging Mai to appeal the decision, it ultimately concluded it could not award anything on her claim for attorney’s fees. Mai appealed, presenting two issues: (1) to what extent did Copenbarger accurately define the minimum showing required to sustain an award of attorney’s fees as damages?; and (2) was the trial court correct in believing that Copenbarger eliminated its discretion to allow Mai to present her attorney’s fee claim on the merits? As to the first issue, the Court of Appeal concluded Copenbarger’s analysis, some of which was dicta, might mislead trial courts by causing them to disregard well-established and binding precedent that predated it. For that reason, the appellate court offered a narrow reading of Copenbarger that harmonized it with other case authority to the extent that was possible. Regarding the second issue, even accepting Copenbarger’s analysis at face value did not, as the trial court here seemed to believe, eliminate all discretion the court possessed to make mid-trial adjustments and accommodations that respect defendants’ right to a fair trial while also allowing plaintiffs to litigate the merits of their claims. Accordingly, judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for a limited retrial on the issue of attorney’s fees as damages in which the court could both apply the proper legal principles and exercise its discretion to achieve substantial justice between the parties. View "Mai v. HKT Cal, Inc." on Justia Law

The Sellers bought an Oakland property to “flip.” After Vega renovated the property, they sold it to Vera, providing required disclosures, stating they were not aware of any water intrusion, leaks from the sewer system or any pipes, work, or repairs that had been done without permits or not in compliance with building codes, or any material facts or defects that had not otherwise been disclosed. Vera’s own inspectors revealed several problems. The Sellers agreed to several repairs Escrow closed in December 2011, but the sewer line had not been corrected. In January 2012, water flooded the basement. The Sellers admitted that earlier sewer work had been completed without a permit and that Vega was unlicensed. In 2014, the exterior stairs began collapsing. Three years and three days after the close of escrow, Vera filed suit, alleging negligence, breach of warranty, breach of contract, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. Based on the three-year limitations period for actions based on fraud or mistake, the court dismissed and, based on a clause in the purchase contract, granted SNL attorney’s fees, including fees related to a cross-complaint against Vera’s broker and real estate agent.The court of appeal affirmed. Vera’s breach of contract claim was based on fraud and the undisputed facts demonstrated Vera’s claims based on fraud accrued more than three years before she filed suit. Vera has not shown the court abused its discretion in awarding fees related to the cross-complaint. View "Vera v. REL-BC, LLC" on Justia Law

The Stone parties appealed from the trial court's order removing their mechanic's lien on a property owned by Plaintiff Manela and his former wife. The Stone parties jointly filed the mechanic's lien to collect payment for work they performed on the Manela property pursuant to a construction contract executed by the Manelas and Stone (the Manela contract), the quality of which Manela challenged in a separate lawsuit. The trial court concluded that Business and Professions Code section 7031, subdivision (a) likely required the Stone parties to forfeit compensation for any work performed under the Manela contract.The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that the order removing the mechanic's lien is appealable, and that the evidence does not support the trial court's conclusion that the Stone parties failed to show section 7031 probably does not require forfeiture. In this case, for the purposes of applying section 7031, the assignment agreement cannot establish that JDSS began performing under the contract before it was licensed. Furthermore, a reasonable trier of fact could not infer that any work had been performed at the request of or on behalf of JDSS before June 22, 2015. Nor does JDSS's mere issuance of a change order meet the definition of performance of the contract set forth in M.W. Erectors, Inc. v. Niederhauser Ornamental & Metal Works Co., Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 412. Therefore, the record compels the conclusion that Stone was not performing under the contract on behalf of JDSS prior to JDSS becoming duly licensed, that JDSS therefore was not performing under the contract before it was licensed, and that section 7031 therefore does not apply. Finally, the court's conclusion is consistent with the policy rationale set forth in E. J. Franks Construction, Inc. v. Sahota (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1123, 1129-1130, which the court found persuasive. View "Manela v. Stone" on Justia Law

A three-year memorandum of understanding (MOU) between Alameda County Superior Court (ACSC), the County, and the Sheriff’s Office governed court security services. The trial court held that the MOU did not obligate the Sheriff to provide a minimum level of court security services of 129 “FTEs” (full-time equivalents) after the MOU's expiration but rather entitled the County and the Sheriff to unilaterally reduce court security services if state funding was not sufficient to pay for 129 FTEs. The decision turned on the court's conclusion that MOU Exhibit C-3 permitted the Sheriff to reduce court security services during the last six months of the three-year MOU period and was the “deployment schedule” that remained in force after the MOU’s expiration.ACSC argued that Exhibit C-1, the deployment schedule that governed the level of court security during the first two years and required a minimum of 129 FTEs, was the only deployment schedule in the MOU, and remained in force after the MOU's expiration. The court of appeal reversed. Exhibit C-1’s provisions remained in force after the expiration of the MOU because Exhibit C-1 is the only portion of the MOU that meets the requirement of Government Code section 699261 that a court security MOU must specify an “agreed-upon level” of court security services. Exhibit C-3 did not satisfy that requirement. View "Superior Court v. County of Alameda" on Justia Law

In an appeal related to a California insurance insolvency proceeding, the New York Plaintiffs requested clarification from the San Francisco Superior Court as to whether its orders "prohibit or stay" their New York claims. In the insolvency case, the trial court appointed the California Insurance Commissioner (Commissioner) as conservator, and later as liquidator, of CastlePoint. The trial court, as part of the process, issued injunctions and approved releases pertaining to claims filed against or on behalf of CastlePoint or its assets.The Court of Appeal concluded that some of the causes of action in the New York lawsuit are not barred. These causes of action relate to: (i) the alleged breach of so-called "successor obligor provisions"; and (ii) an alleged $143 million payment from ACP to shareholders of TGIL. The court explained that these causes of action are not asserted against CastlePoint or the insurance companies that were merged into it, and there is no indication the Commissioner could have asserted these causes of action on behalf of the insolvent insurance companies. Therefore, the court reasoned that permitting them to proceed in New York will not interfere in any meaningful way with the plan for CastlePoint's liquidation, especially given the New York Plaintiffs' agreement not to assert any judgment against the insolvent insurance companies' estate or assets.However, prior to entering into releases, the Commissioner could have asserted fraudulent conveyance causes of action and a cause of action for unjust enrichment because they are based on alleged improper transfers of assets of the insolvent insurance companies. Accordingly, the court concluded that these causes of action are barred by the injunctions and releases in the liquidation proceeding. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Lara v. Castlepoint National Insurance Co." on Justia Law

RECON filed suit against AECOM for damages related to AECOM's alleged failure to properly manage the construction project on which RECON worked as one of AECOM's subcontractors. After AECOM moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause contained in a separate contract (the Prime Agreement) between AECOM and the property owner, Shell, the trial court denied AECOM's motion.The Court of Appeal affirmed and concluded that, in the absence of a clear agreement to submit a dispute to arbitration, the court will not infer a waiver of a party's jury trial rights. The court explained that the subcontractor's incorporation of a voluminous contract containing an arbitration agreement between other parties was insufficient to subject RECON to arbitration of its claims against AECOM. Accordingly, AECOM has failed to establish the existence of an agreement to arbitrate RECON's claims. View "Remedial Construction Services, LP v. Aecom, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2010, after decades of cooperation in selling their hardware and software, HP and Oracle had a disagreement over Oracle’s decision to hire HP’s former CEO. The companies negotiated a confidential settlement agreement, including a “reaffirmation clause,” stating each company’s commitment to their strategic relationship and support of their shared customer base. Six months later, Oracle announced it would discontinue software development on one of HP’s server platforms.The trial judge held that the reaffirmation clause requires Oracle to continue to offer its product suite on certain HP server platforms until HP discontinues their sale. A jury subsequently found that Oracle had breached both the express terms of the settlement agreement and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; it awarded HP $3.014 billion in damages. The court denied HP’s request for prejudgment interest. The court of appeal affirmed. The reaffirmation clause requires Oracle to continue to offer its product suite on certain HP server platforms. The trial court did not err in submitting to the jury the breach of contract and implied covenant claims. The court rejected Oracle’s argument that the judgment must be reversed based on violations of its constitutional right to petition and because HP’s expert’s testimony on damages was impermissibly speculative under California law and should have been excluded. View "Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Oracle Corp." on Justia Law