Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff appealed the trial court's sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend, ruling that plaintiff obligated himself to pay a medical bill when he signed the "Cedars-Sinai Medical Center Conditions of Admissions" (COA). The court concluded that the demurrer was properly sustained as to the Unfair Competition Law, Bus. & Prof. Code 17200 et seq.; plaintiff has forfeited his other claims and has not shown he can amend where he does not explain how he could amend his complaint to avoid demurrer, and he did not propose any proper amendments in opposition to the demurrer; and therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. View "Nolte v. Cedars Sinai Medical Center" on Justia Law

Pacific appealed the Board's suspension of its license as the sanction for failing to notify the Board that a judgment had been entered against Pacific. Jerry McDaniel and his wife Delma own two corporations, Pacific and Gold Coast Drilling, Inc. The trial court found that Pacific did not substantially comply with the requirement that the contractor be licensed while performing work. Pacific argued that the judgment was not “substantially related” to its “construction activities” within the meaning of Bus. & Prof. Code 7071.17, and so Pacific’s license should not have been suspended. The court concluded that Gold Coast was obligated to notify the Board of the unsatisfied stipulated judgment where the stipulated judgment falls within the ambit of section 7071.17 and the stipulated judgment was unsatisfied; the evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Gold Coast did not “act[] reasonably and in good faith” to maintain its license; and, therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. View "Pacific Caisson & Shoring v. Bernards Bros." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, former police officers and firefighters employed by local public agencies, filed suit alleging that CalPERS's failure to pay enhanced retirement benefits under the Public Employees' Retirement Law (PERL), Gov. Code section 20000 et seq., gave rise to a variety of causes of action. In these consolidated appeals, the court affirmed in part and concluded that neither the PERL nor plaintiffs' contracts entitle plaintiffs to the additional retirement benefits they seek and therefore, their causes of action for breach of statutory duty and breach of contract fail as a matter of law. Further, plaintiffs' causes of action for constitutional torts also fail because, as a matter of law, CalPERS's interpretation of the applicable statutory provisions does not deny plaintiffs due process or equal protection of law and does not effect an unconstitutional impairment of contract. The court reversed, however, as to the causes of action for rescission and breach of fiduciary duty where plaintiffs' pleading was sufficient to survive demurrer and therefore demurrer should have been overruled as to these causes of action. In this case, plaintiffs alleged that CalPERS failed to disclose the potential loss of the value of purchased service credit if plaintiffs suffered disability - a disclosure that CalPERS, as a fiduciary, is alleged to have been required to make. View "Marzec v. CalPERS" on Justia Law

Attorney Novak represented Kelly between 2007 and 2012. The two executed a contingency attorney fee agreement that granted Novak lien rights over any settlement Kelly received. In 2011, Novak filed a probate petition which alleged Kelly was a pretermitted spouse of Teitler and negotiated a considerable settlement. The probate court approved the settlement which awarded Kelly a substantial interest in the Dana Teitler Trust. Kelly died. Novak filed suit to enforce the attorney lien in the 2007 fee agreement. The probate court denied the petition, holding that the proper procedure to recover fees was by claim against Kelly’s estate under section 9000; plaintiff was required to file a creditor’s claim within one year of Kelly’s death; the statute of limitations barred the claim; and section 5000(a), which provides a nonprobate transfer, was inapplicable. The court of appeal reversed. Novak had not forfeited a claim under section 9391, that he was an equitable lienholder and did not need to file a creditor’s claim in probate. An assignment provision in the settlement agreement in the event of Kelly’s death did not destroy Novak’s pre-existing attorney fee lien rights. View "Novak v. Fay" on Justia Law

Shortly before the collapse of the housing market, the Gavras, Agam, and Cohen formed a partnership to purchase, subdivide, and build two or three houses for resale in Los Altos Hills. They purchased and subdivided the property into three lots, but financial issues and personality conflicts derailed their plans. Between 2009 and 2011, they sold the vacant lots, losing close to $1.3 million on the project. In 2009, Agam and Cohen sued the Gavras for breach of the Partnership Agreement and breach of their fiduciary duties to the partnership. The Gavras filed a cross-complaint alleging breach of contract. Cohen reached a settlement with the Gavras and the cross-actions between Agam and the Gavras proceeded to trial. The court rejected the Gavras’ breach of contract claim and concluded they had breached both the Partnership Agreement and their fiduciary duties. The court awarded Agam more than $700,000 in reliance damages on the breach of contract claim, no damages on the breach of fiduciary duty claim, and about $245,000 in attorney fees. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting the Gavras’ argument the trial court misallocated the burden of proof on Agam’s breach of contract claim and challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. View "Agam v. Gavra" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-appellants Earl and Marina Rideau entered into an agreement with condominium developer, Inmobiliaria BGJB de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. (BGJB; not a party to this appeal), to purchase a unit to be constructed in Mexico. The Rideaus deposited funds toward the purchase price with an escrow company, defendant-respondent Stewart Title of California. In the "Sale Escrow Instructions," Stewart Title agreed to receive funds from the Rideaus, to be released at the seller's direction to a fund control company, as specified in the Instructions. The project failed and the Rideaus lost their deposit. In the Rideaus' prior appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed a defense judgment on the basis that the trial court erred in denying their contract claim that Stewart Title had breached the Instructions, when it released their $239,700 deposited funds to entities other than the one specified in the Instructions. On remand, the trial court entered judgment in their favor. This appeal arose from the trial court's denial of the Rideaus' motion for an award of contractual attorney fees and costs, based upon "hold harmless" language found in section IV of the Instructions, "Release of Funds," regarding defense of claims arising from the Instructions. The Rideaus argued a portion of that language should be interpreted as a reciprocal attorney fees clause, and not as an item of recovery specified in an indemnity agreement. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court correctly denied the motion and affirmed the order and judgment. View "Rideau v. Stewart Title of California" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a provider of credit repair software and services to credit repair organizations (CROs), sued for breach of contract, fraud, misappropriation of trade secrets, and interference with contract. Defendants work directly for CROs handling administrative tasks. Plaintiff provided defendants its confidential list of CROs and other proprietary information, and entered into agreements for defendants to act as a licensed reseller of plaintiff’s software. Those agreements identify Florida as the venue for dispute resolution and provide for awards of costs and fees. The court granted a temporary restraining order barring defendants from transferring any customers referred to them by plaintiff to any entity that did not use plaintiff’s software and barring defendants from making commercial use of plaintiff’s software. Defendants moved to dismiss based on the forum-selection clauses. The trial court stayed the case for 60 days and extended the preliminary injunction so that plaintiff could seek relief in Florida. After plaintiff refiled in Florida, the California trial court dismissed and dissolved the preliminary injunction. Defendants sought attorney fees of $84,640, as the prevailing parties on the motion to dismiss. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeal agreed, stating that there has been no final resolution of the contract claims. View "DisputeSuite.com, LLC, v. Scoreinc.com" on Justia Law

Customers of a securities firm made claims against that firm based on real estate investments the firm’s broker-dealers recommended. An entity that had an interest in and operated each of the real estate investments filed for bankruptcy, and at least some of the real estate investments became debtors in that bankruptcy proceeding. The appointed examiner in the bankruptcy proceeding found that the entity was engaged in a fraudulent “Ponzi scheme.” When the securities firm applied for professional liability insurance, it disclosed one of the customer claims but not the facts that would support other potential customer claims arising out of investments through the same entity as that involved in the disclosed claim. The insurer refused to defend against undisclosed claims because the policy’s application included an exclusion for nondisclosure of facts that might lead to a claim. The court of appeal affirmed judgment in favor of the insurer: There was no insurance coverage because all of the undisclosed claims arose out of the same events as the disclosed claim. The securities firm was aware of facts and circumstances that might result in a claim or claims being made against it, which awareness it was required to disclose. View "Crown Capital Secs., L.P. v. Endurance Am. Specialty Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Ram’s Gate bought Sonoma County property from the Roches, intending to build a winery. The sellers agreed in the Purchase Agreement to disclose facts having a “material effect on the value of the ownership or use,” including geological hazards. After escrow closed, Ram’s Gate discovered an active fault trace on the property that substantially increased the cost of development, and sued the Roches for breach of contract. The trial court granted summary adjudication, finding the Purchase Agreement warranties merged with the recording of the deed and did not survive the closing. The court of appeal reversed. The trial court relied on the wrong legal standard in determining that merger extinguished the contractual duty to disclose geotechnical reports allegedly known by the Roches; evidence from Ram’s Gate’s representative raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the parties intended to have this duty of disclosure merge with the deed. Ram’s Gate’s claim for breach of contract accrued at the time of the breach; the Roches’ liability for breach was fixed before escrow closed, even though Ram’s Gate was unaware of its right to sue. Even if merger applied, the collateral obligations exception prevented it from extinguishing the disclosure duty. View "Ram's Gate Winery, LLC v. Roche" on Justia Law

Plaintiff bought the property in 2007. The last tenants moved out in 2010. Gas and electric utilities were turned off. In 2011, Plaintiff submitted a claim to Fire Insurance Exchange for a fire at the property. Exchange retained a fire investigator, who reported, “it appears the fire may have been initiated as the result of an uncontrolled warming fire started by an unauthorized inhabitant. Signs of possible habitation were present and the relatively isolated location would permit this. … firewood … and the mattress next to the large hole in the floor also supports this theory.” The property did not have a fireplace. The claims adjuster concluded “Likely transient in house and warming fire got out of hand.” The policy did not “cover direct or indirect loss from: . . . Vandalism or Malicious Mischief, breakage of glass and safety glazing materials if the dwelling has been vacant for more than 30 consecutive days just before the loss.” Vandalism is not defined in the policy. After denial of the claim, Plaintiff filed a complaint for breach of contract and insurance bad faith. The trial court granted Exchange summary adjudication. The court of appeal reversed, finding that the exclusion did not apply. View "Ong v. Fire Ins. Exch." on Justia Law