Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Quest filed suit seeking payment from Angeles for out-of-network laboratory testing services ordered by in-network physicians for Angeles patients. The trial court granted summary adjudication for Angeles for all but two causes of action that were subsequently dismissed. Summary judgment was then entered for Angeles. The court concluded that the referral of specimens to Quest by Angeles physicians who either misidentified the patient‘s IPA/payor or failed to identify an IPA/payor at all did not create an implied-in-fact contract that Angeles would pay for the tests; there is no evidence of an agency relationship between Angeles and its in-network physicians; Angeles does not exercise control over the manner in which the physicians provide medical care to their patients; and the physicians who used Quest drop boxes after the November 30, 2009 termination date did so based on their membership in a Quest-affiliated IPA, their mistaken belief that the patient also belonged to that IPA, or some other error. The court also concluded that there is no implied-in-law or quasi-contract where there is no evidence that Angeles actually paid its in-network laboratory a lower capitation rate as a result of the work that was misdirected to Quest and Quest has not identified a statute or regulation that requires an IPA to pay an out-of-network laboratory where there is no contractual obligation to do so. The court rejected Quest's remaining claims and affirmed the judgment. View "Unilab Corp. v. Angeles-IPA" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from a dispute between defendant, a doctor, and a medical management company, Epic, with which he had contracted to supply non-medical management services to his practice. The arbitrator ruled in favor of Epic and the trial court confirmed the award. The doctor appealed, arguing that the arbitration award cannot stand because the contract, as interpreted by the arbitrator, is illegal. The court concluded, however, that the issue is not reviewable because the arbitrator did not exceed her powers by finding the parties had modified the agreement, and the award may not be vacated for illegality where the award is not reviewable for illegality in the entirety; it was not reviewable under the statutory public policy exception; and there is no legal violation as a matter of law. Finally, the court concluded that there was no prejudicial limitation on the doctor's evidence. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Epic Medical Mgmt. v. Paquette" on Justia Law

On March 28, 2014, real party in interest PCH Enterprises, Inc. sued defendants Sallie Cribley-Cole and Anna Gonzalez for breach of contract, specific performance, and declaratory relief. It alleged defendants failed to perform on a written agreement to sell a certain parcel of real property to PCH. PCH recorded a lis pendens on the same day it filed the complaint. No proof of service accompanied the lis pendens. Petitioner Rey Sanchez Investments sought to intervene, claiming it was the true owner of the property pursuant to a grant deed recorded April 2, 2014. Petitioner moved to expunge the lis pendens on grounds that there were technical defects in the service. PCH offered a proof of service that the lis pendens was personally served on Cribley-Cole in November 2014. The trial court denied the motion to expunge. On appeal, petitioner argued the lis pendens was completely void and subject to expungement because service was improper. The Court of Appeal agreed service was improper and reversed the trial court's judgment by way of a writ of mandate. View "Rey Sanchez Investments v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Case voluntarily enrolled in a three-year, employer-sponsored educational program, agreeing, in writing that if he quit his job within 30 months of completing the program, he would reimburse his employer, UPI, a prorated portion of program costs. Two months after completing the program, Case went to work for another employer. He refused to reimburse UPI, which sued for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Case cross-complained, asserting the reimbursement agreement was unenforceable and UPI violated the Labor Code and other statutory provisions in seeking reimbursement. The trial court granted UPI summary judgment on both its complaint and Case’s cross-complaint, and subsequently granted UPI’s motion for attorney fees for defeating Case’s wage claims. The court applied the version of Labor Code section 218.5 in effect at the time of the summary judgment proceedings, rather than the version in effect at the time it awarded fees, which permits fees to a prevailing employer only when the employee’s wage claims have been brought in “bad faith.” The court of appeal affirmed summary judgment, but reversed the attorney fees award. Under California Supreme Court precedent, statutory provisions that alter the recovery of attorney fees are deemed procedural in nature and apply to pending litigation. View "USS-POSCO Indus. v. Case" on Justia Law

This case was Appellants' fifth unsuccessful attempt to recoup damages arising out of FedEx's termination of their linehaul contracts. They appealed a superior court judgment granting judgment on the pleadings and awarding sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.72 against them and their attorney. After review, the Court of Appeal affirmed and granted defendant-respondent Mirza Ahmad's motion for additional section 128.7 sanctions on appeal against Appellants and their trial counsel. View "Bucur v. Ahmad" on Justia Law

Lewis sued the video-sharing service, YouTube, for breach of contract it deleted her "channel." YouTube filed a filed a request for judicial notice of the YouTube Community Guidelines and several e-mails between Lewis and YouTube.The trial court granted the request for judicial notice and entered a judgment of dismissal. The court of appeal affirmed, stating that no provision in the Terms of Service could serve as the basis for the relief that Lewis sought. The court noted that YouTube has restored service for Lewis. View "Lewis v. YouTube" on Justia Law

In this suit alleging breach of an insurance contract, plaintiff appealed the trial court's grant of defendant's motion for directed verdict. Plaintiff contended that the trial court’s intended jury instruction violated the efficient proximate cause doctrine and there was sufficient evidence to permit the jury to determine whether plaintiff met his burden of proving his claim for punitive damages. The court concluded that plaintiff’s interpretation of the Other Coverage 9 provision is the correct interpretation, consistent with the efficient proximate cause doctrine. A policy cannot extend coverage for a specified peril, then exclude coverage for a loss caused by a combination of the covered peril and an excluded peril, without regard to whether the covered peril was the predominant or efficient proximate cause of the loss. Because the trial court granted the motion for a directed verdict based on the effect the erroneous proposed jury instruction would have had on plaintiff’s case, the court reversed and remanded as to this issue. Because defendant's special instruction No. 12 improperly shifted the burden of proof, the trial court erred in its decision to instruct the jury with defendant’s proposed special instruction and in granting defendant’s motion for directed verdict based on the decision to give that instruction. The court reversed and remanded as to this issue. Finally, the court found no error in the trial court's punitive damages claim. View "Vardanyan v. Amco Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The Army Corps of Engineers retained JMR as general contractor for construction of a dental clinic at the Presidio of Monterey. JMR entered into separate electrical and plumbing subcontracts with EAR. SureTec issued separate bonds guaranteeing EAR’s performance. While the project was ongoing, JMR communicated with EAR about alleged delays, deficient and late submittals, and improper work, and retained certain funds otherwise due EAR. After the project was completed, JMR sued EAR and SureTec for breach of contract and for foreclosure of the bonds. EAR filed a cross-complaint to recover retention funds withheld under the subcontracts. JMR was awarded $315,631, which included an offset for retention funds. The court held that JMR was entitled to attorney fees for its successful defense of the cross-complaint; awarded JMR $90,644.07 in expert witness fees, concluding that JMR’s recovery exceeded its $375,000 pretrial settlement offers. The court of appeal affirmed the judgment but reversed the award of expert fees. The court upheld utilization of the Eichleay method to calculate extended home office overhead damages; use of the modified total cost method of calculating JMR’s disruption and delay damages; and finding SureTec liable under the bonds because formal notice of default was not a condition precedent to recovery. View "JMR Constr. Corp. v. Envtl Assessment & Remediation Mgmt., Inc." on Justia Law

This case arose out of a payment dispute between Coast, a contractor, and United, Coast's subcontractor. On appeal, United challenged the trial court's finding in favor of Coast, arguing that the trial court erred in finding that Coast was not liable for extra payments, as well as for failing to assess penalties and attorney’s fees against Coast for its delay in forwarding the retention payments. The court held that, pursuant to Civil Code section 8814, subdivision (c), a contractor is entitled to withhold a retention payment only when there is a good faith dispute regarding whether the subcontractor is entitled to the full amount of the retention payment. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the trial court as to this issue. On remand, the trial court is directed, pursuant to section 8818, to award United penalties. Consequently, the court reversed the award of attorney fees as to the retention payments and remanded the issue. The court need not reach the merits of the breach of contract claims because United has failed to show that the trial court erred in its determination that United failed to prove damages. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "United Riggers & Erectors v. Coast Iron & Steel" on Justia Law

In 2000, plaintiff accepted the Gray law firm’s offer of employment as an associate attorney, including a provision requiring both parties to submit all disputes relating to the employment relationship to binding arbitration. In 2005, Gray merged into DLA Piper. In 2006, plaintiff signed a “Confidential Resignation Agreement and General Release of Claims.” DLA agreed to continue to provide insurance and other benefits until August 2006, when his employment would officially terminate. The Termination Agreement is silent concerning dispute resolution. Plaintiff later sued, alleging: breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; breach of contract; promissory fraud; and constructive fraud, arguing that the firm had “undervalued” his benefits by computing them based on “artificially reduced salary figures.” DLA sought to compel arbitration. Plaintiff asserted the Termination Agreement constituted a novation, extinguishing the arbitration provision, and that even if the provision had survived, claims involving the benefit plan were not subject to arbitration. The court compelled arbitration. In 2013, the arbitrator determined DLA had breached the Termination Agreement and plaintiff had suffered emotional distress, and awarded $41,000 in contract damages plus interest, $45,000 in emotional distress damages, and $7,535.67 in costs. The court of appeal affirmed confirmation of the award. View "Jenks v. DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary" on Justia Law