Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Defendant Westlake Services LLC appealed a trial court order denying its motion to compel arbitration. Alfredo Ramos, and coplaintiffs (who are not parties to this appeal) sued Defendant Westlake Services LLC for causes of actions arising out of their purchase of used automobiles. Ramos alleged that negotiations for his purchase of a car were conducted primarily in Spanish. Defendant charged Ramos money for a “guaranteed auto protection” (GAP) contract to cover the vehicle he purchased. A copy of the GAP contract was not provided to him in Spanish. In exchange for the payment of a premium by the consumer and/or purchaser of the automobile, the ‘GAP’ insurance policy contract, which identifies the respective rights and liabilities of the parties to the contract, is purportedly intended to pay the difference between the actual cash value of the financed automobile and the then-current outstanding balance on the loan for the automobile should the financed automobile be destroyed or ‘totaled’ in an accident. Ramos asserted three causes of action based on Westlake’s failure to provide a translation of the GAP contract: (1) violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); (2) violation of section 1632; and (3) violation of the unfair competition law (UCL). Westlake moved to compel arbitration of Ramos’s and his coplaintiffs’ claims, relying on the arbitration provisions contained in the underlying sales contracts they each had signed. Upon review, the Court of Appeal concluded that Ramos reasonably relied on a Spanish translation of the English contract that Pena Motors (as Westlake’s agent) provided him that did not include the arbitration. The Court concluded that mutual assent to the arbitration agreement was lacking, void and that the trial court correctly denied Westlake’s motion to compel arbitration. View "Ramos v. Westlake Services" on Justia Law

In 2008, Nunez purchased a commercial fishing vessel built in 1944, for $1. Having no fishing or boating expertise, Nunez hired Pennisi to install a refrigeration system and work on the boat’s pumping and electrical systems. The refrigeration system did not work properly; apparently Nunez moved the boat before Pennisi finished work and there was some evidence that the generators were inadequate for the system. Nunez sued Pennisi for the allegedly substandard work. Nunez contends he never read the complaint, but he signed a verification. Pennisi filed a cross-complaint, asserting breach of contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing, and goods and services rendered. The court dismissed claims by Nunez and, after a jury verdict, entered judgment in favor of Pennisi. Subsequently, Pennisi sued Nunez and his attorneys alleging malicious prosecution. The court denied a motion by Nunez under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.162 (anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) to strike the malicious prosecution complaint and awarded $8,315 in attorney fees to Pennisi. The court of appeal reversed in part, finding that some of Pennisi's claims lacked the minimal merit necessary to avoid being stricken as a SLAPP, but that Pennisi’s malicious prosecution action had minimal merit. View "Nunez v. Pennisi" on Justia Law

Pacific Trades Construction & Development, Inc. was a defendant in a lawsuit that alleged, in part, that Pacific Trades was liable for damages for construction defects caused by Pacific Trades's negligent acts or omissions. Underwriters of Interest Subscribing to Policy Number A15274001 (Underwriters) undertook Pacific Trades's defense in that action under its Commercial General Liability (CGL) policy insuring Pacific Trades. ProBuilders Specialty Insurance Company, which also insured Pacific Trades, declined to participate in funding Pacific Trades's defense, claiming (among other things) that a clause in its policy relieved ProBuilders of any duty to defend Pacific Trades when another insurer was doing so. Underwriters sought equitable contribution from ProBuilders for a portion of the defense costs. The parties filed cross-motions seeking summary adjudication of ProBuilders's liability for a portion of the defense costs. The trial court agreed with ProBuilders that a clause in its policy relieved it of any duty to defend Pacific Trades when (as here) another insurer was defending Pacific Trades, and entered summary judgment in favor of ProBuilders. Underwriters appealed that determination. The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court erred in enforcing the clause in ProBuilders's policy and, because the other arguments raised by ProBuilders in support of its summary judgment motion on Underwriters's claim for equitable contribution did not support the judgment, the Court reversed the judgment. View "Underwriters of Interest v. ProBuilders Specialty Ins. Co." on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from a contract dispute between San Pasqual and the State governing San Pasqual's operation of a casino on its land. San Pasqual filed two suits against the State that were consolidated, alleging breach of contract and seeking damages for five years of lost profits. On appeal, San Pasqual challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to the State. The court agreed with the State that Section 9.4 of the Compact between the State and San Pasqual is unambiguous, applies to this action, and bars San Pasqual’s damages claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians v. California" on Justia Law

HKS a Texas architecture firm, provided services for a luxury hotel in Mammoth Lakes under an Agreement that contained a Texas forum selection clause, requiring mediation, and a Texas choice of law provision.The Agreement authorized HKS to hire “[c]onsultants.” Vita, a California landscape design firm, submitted to HKS a Contract incorporating the terms of the Agreement. Neither Vita or HKS signed the Contract, but Vita performed work in 2008, during the “design phase” and sent invoices to HKS. Owner began having financial problems before construction commenced, leaving HKS with unpaid bills for its own services and those provided by “consultants.” HKS obtained a judgment against Owner in 2010 in Texas for $1,617,073.70 but was unable to recover anything. In 2013, Vita sued HKS, alleging breach of contract; unjust enrichment; quantum meruit; and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, seeking $370,650.53. After answering the complaint, HKS moved to enforce the forum selection clause and dismiss. The court of appeal reversed dismissal. HKS established the existence of a contract between HKS and Vita containing a forum selection clause, but Code of Civil Procedure 410.42 prohibits enforcement of construction contract provisions requiring disputes between contractors and California subcontractors to be litigated outside California. View "Vita Planning & Landscape Architecture, Inc. v. HKS Architects, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendants Charles and Stella Ohaeri leased space for a thrift store in a shopping center owned by plaintiff AP-Colton LLC. The thrift store was not a success, and the Ohaeris stopped paying rent. According to the Ohaeris, AP-Colton had fraudulently induced them to enter into the lease by stating that a church was going to move into the space next to theirs, but a competing store moved in instead. AP-Colton originally filed this case as a limited civil action, in which damages were limited to $25,000. The Ohaeris filed a cross-complaint seeking more than $25,000, but they did not pay the $140 fee required to reclassify the case as an unlimited civil action. Thereafter, AP-Colton filed an amended complaint seeking more than $25,000, because the Ohaeris should already have paid the reclassification fee, so AP-Colton did not pay it. After a bench trial, the trial court rejected the Ohaeris' fraud claims and awarded AP-Colton $126,437.25. The Ohaeris argued on appeal of that judgment that among other things, the case remained a limited civil action, and thus, the trial court erred by awarding damages of more than $25,000. The Court of Appeal agreed that the case should have remained a limited civil action. The Ohaeris, however, took the position below that the case had become an unlimited civil action, and the trial court accepted this position by awarding AP-Colton damages in excess of $25,000. The Court of Appeal held that as a result, the Ohaeris were judicially estopped to deny that the case was an unlimited civil action. Accordingly, on condition that it pays the $140 reclassification fee, AP-Colton can recover the full award. View "AP-Colton v. Ohaeri" on Justia Law

Defendant Cy Tapia, a teenager living with his aunt and grandmother, was driving a vehicle which crashed, inflicting severe and eventually fatal injuries on his passenger, Cory Driscoll. Before his death Driscoll and his mother filed an action for damages. The parties established that the vehicle driven by Tapia was owned by his grandfather and that Tapia was entitled to $100,000 in liability coverage under an auto policy issued to Melissa McGuire (Tapia’s sister), which listed the vehicle as an insured vehicle and listed Tapia as the driver of the vehicle. The policy was issued by petitioner-defendant 21st Century Insurance Company. 21st Century offered to settle the action for the policy limits of the McGuire policy ($100,000). However, plaintiff1 also believed that Tapia might be covered under policies issued to his aunt and grandmother, each offering $25,000 in coverage and also issued by 21st Century. Plaintiff communicated an offer to settle for $150,000 to Tapia’s counsel; 21st Century contended that it never received this offer (although there was certainly evidence to the contrary). Inferrably having realized the seriousness of its position, 21st Century affirmatively offered the “full” $150,000 to settle the case against Tapia. Plaintiff did not accept this offer, but a month later plaintiff’s counsel served a statutory offer to compromise seeking $3,000,000 for Cory Driscoll and $1,150,000 for his mother Jenny Driscoll. Shortly before the expiration of this offer, 21st Century sent Tapia a letter warning him that it would not agree to be bound if Tapia personally elected to accept the offer. Nonetheless, Tapia agreed to the entry of a stipulated judgment in the amounts demanded by plaintiff. 21st Century paid $150,000 plus interest to the plaintiff. Tapia then assigned any rights he had against 21st Century to plaintiff. This assignment and agreement included plaintiff’s promise not to execute on the judgment against Tapia so long as he complied with his obligations, e.g., to testify to certain facts concerning the original litigation and 21st Century’s actions. This bad faith action followed. Petitioner's unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment, and petitioned the Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to overturn the trial court's denial. Upon review, the Court of Appeal found that plaintiff’s efforts to pursue essentially a “bad faith” action as assignee of the insured was misguided. Accordingly, petitioner was entitled to summary judgment. View "21st Century Ins. v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

This suit stemmed from a failed multimillion dollar investment in commercial real estate. Plaintiffs were seven investors in Southwest Corporate Center (the Property), a three-story office building in Tempe, Arizona. The 30 defendants played various roles in acquiring the Property and marketing ownership shares therein to plaintiffs. This appeal did not involve the parties from whom plaintiffs actually purchased their investments, including defendant WA Southwest Acquisitions, LLC (Acquisitions). Instead, this appeal centered on three judgments of dismissal entered on May 15, 2014, in favor of four defendants (the respondents to this appeal) on the periphery of the transaction: (1) First American Title Insurance Company, which provided escrow and closing services in connection with the acquisition of the Property; (2) Hirschler Fleischer, a law firm that worked on the investment offering and prepared a tax opinion in connection therewith; (3) Trammell Crow Company (Trammell Crow), which acted as real estate broker for the original seller of the Property and then entered into a property management and leasing agreement with plaintiffs; and (4) CBRE, Inc. (CBRE), which acquired Trammell Crow and became its successor in interest. The Court of Appeal affirmed the three judgments of dismissal at issue here because the applicable statutes of limitation foreclosed recovery. View "WA Southwest 2 v. First Amer. Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Sequeira did not work on January 1, 2010, because it was a paid holiday. He was hospitalized the next day with a sudden illness and died on January 6 without returning to work. Sequeira’s widow sought benefits under a supplemental life insurance policy that was issued to Sequeira’s employer on January 1, 2010. The trial court ruled that she was not entitled to benefits because the policy required her husband to be “on the job, at his employer’s place of employment, performing his customary duties” between January 1 and his death. The court of appeal reversed. The policy is ambiguous regarding whether Sequeira needed to perform his work responsibilities on New Year’s Day or anytime after that in order for his wife to receive benefits. The court should, therefore, interpret the policy in favor of Sequeira’s reasonable expectations, which are that he should not have to work on New Year’s Day or when he is sick in order to receive coverage that he has paid for. View "Sequeira v. Lincoln National Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

West Bay Builders, Inc. and Safeco Insurance Company of America (Safeco) appealed the trial court’s denial of their motion for attorney fees under Business and Professions Code section 7108.5 and Public Contract Code sections 7107 and 10262.5 (prompt payment statutes). West Bay and Safeco were sued by James L. Harris Painting & Decorating, Inc. for breach of contract and violation of the prompt payment statutes. In turn, West Bay filed a cross-complaint against Harris for breach of contract arising out of the same construction project. After years of litigation, the jury found both West Bay and Harris had failed to perform and thus did not award damages to either side. Safeco also did not recover because it was sued only in its capacity as issuer of a bond to West Bay for the construction project. Although West Bay and Safeco did not recover any damages, they moved for attorney fees under the fee shifting provisions of the prompt payment statutes. The trial court denied their motion, finding there was no prevailing party in this case. On appeal, West Bay and Safeco argued the trial court lacked discretion to refuse an award of mandatory attorney fees under the prompt payment statutes because they prevailed at trial. After review, the Court of Appeal disagreed, finding that under the prompt payment statutes, the trial court has discretion to determine there is no prevailing party in an action. And in this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding there was no prevailing party. View "James L Harris Painting v. West Bay" on Justia Law