Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Area 51 used Alameda city property for events it planned for third-party companies. PM assisted the city with managing the license arrangements. Due to problems connected with Area 51 events, the city ceased doing business with it. Area 51 had committed to third-party entities based on PM’s previous confirmation of the city’s willingness to license space. Area 51 sued. Defendants (city, PM, and individuals) filed a demurrer and a motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute. The court denied that motion and granted the demurrer. The court of appeal reversed in part. While the thrust of the claims against the city is breach of contract, the individual defendants were not contracting parties; the sole basis for asserting liability against them is what they did on behalf of the city. That conduct is expressive in nature (emails confirming dates, and announcing termination of the leasing relationship), which qualify as “written or oral statement[s] . . . made in connection with an issue under consideration . . . by a[n] . . . executive . . . body,” under the anti-SLAPP law. Area 51 could not show a probability of prevailing on the merits. The case was remanded for consideration of an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. View "Area 51 Productions, Inc. v. City of Alameda" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against CarMax, alleging breaches of express and implied warranties, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, unfair competition under Business and Professions Code section 17200 (UCL), and a violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). When plaintiff purchased her car at a CarMax dealership, she was not informed that there was an outstanding safety recall relating to the stop lamp switch in the vehicle. In regard to the alleged breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, the Court of Appeal concluded that CarMax's express limitations on the remedies available applied to such a breach. The court explained that plaintiff obtained the remedy authorized under the contract and its limitations for a breach of warranty. However, plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to establish CarMax engaged in unfair or deceptive practices in violation of the CLRA, and plaintiff pleaded sufficient facts to establish CarMax had a duty to disclose the safety recall. Finally, plaintiff stated a cause of action under the UCL where the violation of the CLRA served as the predicate violation of law necessary to establish the unlawful practice variety of unfair competition that was actionable under the UCL. Therefore, the court reversed the trial court's judgment. View "Gutierrez v. CarMax Auto Superstores California" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against CarMax, alleging breaches of express and implied warranties, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, unfair competition under Business and Professions Code section 17200 (UCL), and a violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). When plaintiff purchased her car at a CarMax dealership, she was not informed that there was an outstanding safety recall relating to the stop lamp switch in the vehicle. In regard to the alleged breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, the Court of Appeal concluded that CarMax's express limitations on the remedies available applied to such a breach. The court explained that plaintiff obtained the remedy authorized under the contract and its limitations for a breach of warranty. However, plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to establish CarMax engaged in unfair or deceptive practices in violation of the CLRA, and plaintiff pleaded sufficient facts to establish CarMax had a duty to disclose the safety recall. Finally, plaintiff stated a cause of action under the UCL where the violation of the CLRA served as the predicate violation of law necessary to establish the unlawful practice variety of unfair competition that was actionable under the UCL. Therefore, the court reversed the trial court's judgment. View "Gutierrez v. CarMax Auto Superstores California" on Justia Law

Before marrying Claudia, Mathew downloaded a form and drafted a premarital agreement, describing Claudia's rights in real property owned by Matthew. Matthew retained attorney Chernick to represent Claudia. Chernick advised Matthew to seek independent legal counsel. Matthew stated he would represent himself. Chernick spoke to Claudia outside Matthew’s presence, revised the agreement and, on March 5, sent a red-lined version to both, containing additional provisions and stating that each party had had more than seven days to review the agreement before executing it. The parties signed a final version on March 6. Matthew executed a waiver of legal counsel. The parties separated. Claudia sought enforcement of the agreement. The court of appeal affirmed that the agreement was unenforceable under Family Code 1615(c)(2), because Matthew was not presented with the final version of the agreement at least seven days before its execution and, under Family Code 1615(c)(3), because Matthew had not been provided with a written advisement of the rights he was relinquishing and did not execute a waiver of those rights. When the evidence shows an unrepresented party to a premarital agreement was not provided with the seven-day review period, the agreement’s recitation that the review period was provided is not binding. Section 1615(c)(3) applies to an agreement that was initially generated by the unrepresented party. View "Marriage of Clarke & Akel" on Justia Law

Before marrying Claudia, Mathew downloaded a form and drafted a premarital agreement, describing Claudia's rights in real property owned by Matthew. Matthew retained attorney Chernick to represent Claudia. Chernick advised Matthew to seek independent legal counsel. Matthew stated he would represent himself. Chernick spoke to Claudia outside Matthew’s presence, revised the agreement and, on March 5, sent a red-lined version to both, containing additional provisions and stating that each party had had more than seven days to review the agreement before executing it. The parties signed a final version on March 6. Matthew executed a waiver of legal counsel. The parties separated. Claudia sought enforcement of the agreement. The court of appeal affirmed that the agreement was unenforceable under Family Code 1615(c)(2), because Matthew was not presented with the final version of the agreement at least seven days before its execution and, under Family Code 1615(c)(3), because Matthew had not been provided with a written advisement of the rights he was relinquishing and did not execute a waiver of those rights. When the evidence shows an unrepresented party to a premarital agreement was not provided with the seven-day review period, the agreement’s recitation that the review period was provided is not binding. Section 1615(c)(3) applies to an agreement that was initially generated by the unrepresented party. View "Marriage of Clarke & Akel" on Justia Law

The underlying action was initiated by homeowners from two residential developments in Rocklin against appellants Centex Homes and Centex Real Estate Corporation (Centex) for alleged defects to their homes. Centex and cross-defendant and respondent St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company (St. Paul) have a history of insurance coverage disputes. St. Paul was an insurer for subcontractor Ad Land Venture (Ad Land), and agreed to defend Centex as an additional insured subject to a reservation of rights. Centex filed a cross-complaint against its subcontractors and St. Paul that sought, as the seventh cause of action, a declaration that Centex was entitled to independent counsel under Civil Code section 28601 because St. Paul’s reservation of rights created significant conflicts of interest. Centex appealed after the trial court granted St. Paul’s motion for summary adjudication of Centex’s seventh cause of action. Centex argued any possible or potential conflict was legally sufficient to require St. Paul to provide independent counsel. The Court of Appeal disagreed. Alternatively, Centex contended independent counsel was required because counsel appointed by St. Paul could influence the outcome of the coverage dispute and St. Paul controlled both sides of the litigation. The Court of Appeal concluded that because Centex failed to establish a triable issue of material fact regarding these assertions, the Court affirmed the judgment. View "Centex Homes v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The underlying action was initiated by homeowners from two residential developments in Rocklin against appellants Centex Homes and Centex Real Estate Corporation (Centex) for alleged defects to their homes. Centex and cross-defendant and respondent St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company (St. Paul) have a history of insurance coverage disputes. St. Paul was an insurer for subcontractor Ad Land Venture (Ad Land), and agreed to defend Centex as an additional insured subject to a reservation of rights. Centex filed a cross-complaint against its subcontractors and St. Paul that sought, as the seventh cause of action, a declaration that Centex was entitled to independent counsel under Civil Code section 28601 because St. Paul’s reservation of rights created significant conflicts of interest. Centex appealed after the trial court granted St. Paul’s motion for summary adjudication of Centex’s seventh cause of action. Centex argued any possible or potential conflict was legally sufficient to require St. Paul to provide independent counsel. The Court of Appeal disagreed. Alternatively, Centex contended independent counsel was required because counsel appointed by St. Paul could influence the outcome of the coverage dispute and St. Paul controlled both sides of the litigation. The Court of Appeal concluded that because Centex failed to establish a triable issue of material fact regarding these assertions, the Court affirmed the judgment. View "Centex Homes v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant for causes of action arising out of defendant's breach of contract, and for fraud. Plaintiff and defendant had entered into a contract under which plaintiff paid the purchase price for a Malibu residence to be held by defendant as the "nominal owner." The trial court rejected plaintiff's fraud claim, but found that defendant had breached the contract. The trial court denied plaintiff's request for rescission, but ordered that the property be sold and the proceeds apportioned between the parties in accordance with the contract. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court did not err by granting plaintiff relief based on defendant's breach of contract; defendant's challenge to particular provisions of the judgment were rejected; and plaintiff's appeal from an order denying his motion for leave to amend was moot. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Guan v. Hu" on Justia Law

Burkhalter Kessler Clement & George LLP (Burkhalter) subleased a portion of its office space to the Eclipse Group LLP (Eclipse). The sublease contract had a provision for an award of reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in the event of a lawsuit. Burkhalter later filed a complaint against Eclipse alleging breach of contract; Burkhalter also named Jennifer Hamilton, a managing partner of Eclipse, as an alter ego defendant. The two defendants were jointly represented by Avyno Law P.C. (Avyno). Burkhalter prevailed against Eclipse on the breach of contract claim; Hamilton prevailed against Burkhalter on the alter ego theory (she was dismissed with prejudice). The trial court granted Burkhalter’s motion for its attorney fees, but denied Hamilton’s motion for her attorney fees. There was no explanation for the court’s denial. Hamilton appealed, and the Court of Appeal reversed: here, both Burkhalter and Hamilton were prevailing parties on the contract. On remand, the trial court was directed to award Hamilton reasonable attorney fees that were incurred by Avyno solely in her defense, subject to the court’s sound discretion. View "Burkhalter Kessler Clement & George, LLP v. Hamilton" on Justia Law

The oral agreement at issue in this appeal was made in connection with a transaction by which three companies, of which Albert Kanno was the majority shareholder, were sold to two Delaware corporations. The transaction was documented principally by three writings, each of which had an integration clause. A jury found in favor of Kanno and against Marwit Capital Partners II, L.P. (Marwit Capital) and Marwit Partners, LLC (Marwit LLC) on Kanno’s claim for breach of the oral agreement. After the jury rendered its verdict, the trial court concluded the parol evidence rule did not bar Kanno’s breach of contract claim and that the oral agreement was enforceable. Marwit Capital and Marwit LLC (together, Marwit) appealed. The Court of Appeal concluded the three written agreements were at most partial integrations, and, therefore, the oral agreement was enforceable if its terms did not directly contradict and were consistent with those three agreements, and the Court found no direct contradiction or inconsistency. View "Kanno v. Marwit Capital Partners II" on Justia Law