Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

After Rio School District’s new school was completed, the District and its general contractor (FTR) engaged in a decade-long legal battle, resulting in a judgment for FTR exceeding $9 million. Public Contract Code section 7107 allows a public entity to withhold funds due a contractor when there are liens on the property or a good faith dispute concerning whether the work was properly performed. The trial court assessed penalties against District because it did not timely release the retained funds. The court of appeal affirmed in part. A dispute over the contract price does not entitle a public entity to withhold funds due a contractor; the doctrine of unclean hands does not apply to section 7107; the trial court properly rejected the District's action under the False Claims Act, Government Code section 12650 and properly assessed prejudgment interest, subject to adjustment for any extra work claims found untimely on remand. The trial court erred in its interpretation of a contract provision imposing time limitations to submit the contractor's claims for extra work as requiring a showing of prejudice and erred in awarding fees for work not solely related to FTR's section 7107 cause of action. View "East West Bank v. Rio School Dist." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Ronald Lee Cline was severely injured when his motorcycle collided with a turning car driven by a teenager with a provisional license. He settled with the driver and the driver’s parents for their $100,000 insurance policy limit. Cline executed a release that released the driver and his parents “and any other person, corporation, association, or partnership responsible in any manner or degree” for the accident. Cline subsequently sued defendant Berniece Delores Homuth, the driver’s grandmother and the sole adult in the car with him at the time of the collision, for negligent supervision. Homuth raised the release as an affirmative defense. She moved for summary judgment; the trial court denied the motion. A court trial followed, centering on the validity of the release and whether Homuth was an intended third party beneficiary of the release. Cline appealed the judgment in favor of Homuth, arguing the extrinsic evidence demonstrated that Homuth was not an intended beneficiary of the release. The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding that Cline failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter Homuth’s showing that she was an intended beneficiary of the release. View "Cline v. Homuth" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Trilogy at Glenn Ivy Maintenance Association and various homeowners filed suit against defendant Shea Homes, Inc., and others alleging, inter alia, that Shea improperly diverted revenues from a contract that should have been paid to Association. After Shea sought and obtained judgment on the pleadings, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and Shea responded by moving to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (the anti-SLAPP, strategic lawsuit against public participation, statute). The trial court denied the motion and Shea appealed. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded the trial court correctly found Shea had not satisfied its initial burden of showing plaintiffs' claims arose from protected activity and therefore correctly denied Shea's motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP law. View "Trilogy at Glen Ivy v. Shea Homes" on Justia Law

I-CA is a small business owned by Alonis that imports products from Israel to California. Palram, based in Israel, manufactures corrugated panels. I-CA opened the first U.S. warehouse for Palram and started importing its products. In 1997 or 1998, Palram lost the business of selling wood closure strips to Home Depot. While exploring alternatives for Palram, I-CA established a business relationship with Plasgad. Plasgad and I-CA worked together for many years to develop a plastic closure strip specifically for Palram products. Plasgad obtained a patent for the strips in 2002. I-CA became Palram’s sole supplier; Palram was the exclusive distributor of the products. Plasgad began selling the strips directly to Palram in 2007. I-CA sued both companies for tortious interference with contractual relations. Separate awards of $225,137.62 plus prejudgment interest were entered in favor of I-CA against each. A third award of $327,396.96, plus prejudgment interest of $157,778.41 was made in favor of Plasgad and against I-CA for breach of contract, offset against the award in favor of I-CA, resulting in a net recovery to Plasgad of $260,604.48. I-CA was awarded costs against Palram as the prevailing party, but Plasgad was awarded costs against I-CA as the prevailing party. The court of appeal affirmed. View "I-CA Enters., Inc. v. Palram Am., Inc." on Justia Law

In September 2006, Blue Shield, canceled DuBeck’s medical insurance policy, claiming DuBeck had made material misrepresentations in her application and concealed that she had undergone a fine needle aspiration for a lump in her breast days before submitting the application. The policy had been in effect 17 months. Blue Shield had paid medical claims unrelated to the breast cancer, deemed a pre-existing condition. The cancellation letter expressly stated that Blue Shield was electing to cancel coverage prospectively, rather than rescind the policy, and that any claims for covered services incurred prior to cancellation would be covered. In September 2008, DuBeck filed suit, alleging that Blue Shield had failed to pay covered claims while the policy was in force. Blue Shield asserted its right to rescind the policy, voiding it ab initio. The trial court granted Blue Shield summary judgment. The court of appeal reversed, holding that the 2006 decision to cancel, rather than rescind the policy; the affirmation of coverage up to that date and assurance that it would pay for services covered prior to cancellation; retention of premium; and failure to assert a right to rescind until more than two years after Blue Cross had all the pertinent facts, constituted a waiver of the right to rescind. View "DuBeck v. Cal. Physicians' Serv." on Justia Law

Shaun Trabert purchased a used vehicle from an automobile dealer. Trabert signed a preprinted industry-drafted installment sales contract. The dealer then assigned the contract to Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc. Portfolio later repossessed Trabert's vehicle, and Trabert filed a class action complaint alleging Portfolio's repossession/default notices were defective under consumer statutes. This appeal was the second time the issue of an automobile purchaser who brought consumer claims against the creditor-assignee of the parties' sales contract came before the Court of Appeal. The first appeal involved the enforceability of an arbitration agreement in the contract. In "Trabert I," the Court held the arbitration agreement contained certain unconscionable provisions, and remanded for the court to determine whether these provisions could be severed from the remaining agreement. On remand, the trial court declined to sever the provisions and denied the creditor-assignee's motion to compel arbitration. Portfolio challenged the trial court's last order in this second appeal. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded the trial court erred in denying Portfolio's motion. "The unconscionable provisions concern only exceptions to the finality of the arbitration award, and can be deleted without affecting the core purpose and intent of the arbitration agreement. The deletion of these exceptions creates a binding arbitration award and promotes the fundamental attributes of arbitration, including speed, efficiency, and lower costs." The Court reversed and remanded with directions for the court to sever the unconscionable provisions from the arbitration agreement and granted Portfolio's motion to compel arbitration. View "Trabert v. Consumer Portfolio Services" on Justia Law

Lydig Construction was the general contractor on a large public works project. Martinez Steel was the original steel supply subcontractor on the project. Lydig sued Martinez for additional costs Lydig incurred because Martinez failed to timely supply steel for the project; Lydig, with the public agency's approval, had been required to replace Martinez as the steel supplier. Lydig moved for a right to attach order and a writ of attachment and presented the trial court with its business records and declarations from its employees. Martinez opposed Lydig's motion and presented declarations from one of its employees that set forth its contention Lydig owed it for, among other items, steel Martinez had delivered to the project. Martinez filed a cross-complaint in which it alleged claims that, if successful, would entirely offset Lydig's claims against it. The trial court granted Lydig's motion and issued writs of attachment in the amount of $203,315. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting Martinez's contentions that its cross-complaint, as a matter of law, prevented the trial court from issuing a writ of attachment against it and that Lydig's application for a writ of attachment was not supported by substantial evidence. View "Lydig Constr., Inc. v. Martinez Steel Corp." on Justia Law

Belasco bought a new Manhattan Beach residence in 2004 from the builder (Wells). In 2006, Belasco filed a complaint with the Contractors State License Board, alleging construction defects. Belasco and Wells settled the dispute in 2006, with Wells paying $25,000 and Belasco executing a release and a Civil Code 15241 waiver of all known or unknown claims. In 2012, Belasco sued, based on an alleged roof defect discovered in 2011. The trial court entered summary judgment, finding the action barred by the settlement. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting arguments that: the 2006 general release and waiver for patent construction defects is not a “reasonable release” of a subsequent claim for latent defects under section 929 and the Right to Repair Act (section 895); a reasonable release can only apply to a “particular violation” and not to a latent defect under section 945.5(f), and the 2006 settlement was too vague to be a valid; section 932 authorizes an action on “[s]ubsequently discovered claims of unmet standards;” public policy prohibits use of a general release and section 1542 waiver to bar a subsequent claim for latent residential construction defects; and a genuine issue of fact existed concerning fraud and negligence claims that would void the settlement under section 1668. View "Belasco v. Wells" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, former employees of Pacific Bell, took early retirement, with the option to take a pension or a lump sum payment. All chose the lump sum, persuaded to do so by Kearney, with whom each plaintiff had significant interaction, having first learned of her from presentations made at the Pacific Bell premises. All became clients of Kearney, in connection with which they signed some documents, by which Kearney came to manage and invest their retirement proceeds, in some cases for years. Dissatisfied, plaintiffs sued Kearney and AIG Financial Advisors, the successor to the company where Kearney originally worked. AIGFA filed a petition to compel arbitration, supported in part by a declaration of Kearney. Without holding an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the petition. That arbitration occurred, with the arbitrators ultimately issuing an award rejecting plaintiffs’ claims. After judgment was entered on the award, plaintiffs appealed. The court of appeal reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. View "Ashburn v. AIG Fin. Advisors, Inc." on Justia Law

Before it was acquired by DirecTV, 180 Connect entered into an employment arbitration agreement with Marenco, which prohibited filing a class or collective action, or a representative or private attorney general action. After acquiring 180 Connect, DirecTV retained employees, including Marenco. Marenco later filed suit, alleging that DirecTV had issued debit cards in payment of wages to a putative class of employees. Plaintiffs who used their cards to withdraw cash at ATM machines were required to pay an activation fee and a cash withdrawal fee, resulting in DirecTV’s failure to pay plaintiffs’ full wages in violation of the Unfair Competition Law and Labor Code 212. DirecTV moved to compel arbitration of Marenco’s individual claims, and stay the class claims. Marenco argued that DirecTV lacked standing to enforce the agreement and that the agreement was unconscionable and unenforceable under California law. The U.S. Supreme Court then issued its 2011 decision, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts the California rule of unconscionability. The trial court ordered arbitration of Marenco’s individual claims, holding that DirecTV had standing; the class action waiver is not unconscionable; and prohibition of representative actions does not violate the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 157). The court of appeal affirmed. View "Marenco v. DirecTV, LLC" on Justia Law