Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Ironwood Country Club appealed an order that denied its motion to compel arbitration of the declaratory relief action brought by plaintiffs William S. Cobb, Jr., and Elizabeth Richards, who were former members of Ironwood, and Patrick J. Keeley and Helen Riedstra, who were then-current members. The motion to compel was based on an arbitration provision Ironwood incorporated into its bylaws four months after plaintiffs' complaint was filed. In 1999, the Club entered into an agreement with each of its 588 members, whereby each member loaned the club $25,500 to fund the Club's purchase of additional land. The members were given the option of paying the funds in a lump sum or by making payments over a period of 20 years into a "Land Purchase Account." In connection with the loans, the Club represented that if any member sold his or her membership before the loan was repaid, the Club would be "absolutely obligated to pay the Selling Member the entire amount then standing in the Member's Land Purchase Account." Moreover, any new member would be required to pay, in addition to the regular initiation fee, an amount equal to the hypothetical balance in a Land Purchase Account, as well as the "remaining unamortized portion of the Land Purchase Assessment." In reliance on the Club's representations, the members voted to approve the land purchase and enter into the loan agreements. Three of the plaintiffs paid the lump sum, and one plaintiff elected to make monthly payments into a Land Purchase Account. In April 2012, Ironwood represented that it had repaid the $25,500 Land Purchase Assessment to 10 resigned members whose memberships were subsequently purchased by new members, since 2003. However, plaintiffs alleged that despite the Club's initial description of how the funds would be generated to reimburse resigning members, it "inexplicably failed" to require new members to pay the equivalent of the Land Purchase Assessment when they joined. The trial court held that Ironwood's subsequent amendment of its bylaws was insufficient to demonstrate that any of these plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate this dispute, and that if Ironwood's basic premise were accepted, it would render the agreement illusory. Ironwood argued: (1) that its new arbitration provision was fully applicable to this previously filed lawsuit because the lawsuit concerned a dispute which was "ongoing" between the parties; and (2) that its right to amend its bylaws meant that any such amendment would be binding on both current and former members. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court's conclusions, and affirmed the order. View "Cobb v. Ironwood Country Club" on Justia Law

A California resident owned an apartment building in Arkansas that was insured by a Michigan insurance company under a policy the owner obtained through an insurance agent in Arkansas. That policy included commercial property coverage for the Arkansas apartment building and commercial general liability coverage for the owner's property ownership business, which he operated from California. Other than writing this policy, the insurer did no business in California. Both the commercial property coverage and the commercial general liability coverage in the policy covered some risks, losses, or damages that could have arisen in California, but the dispute at issue here arose out of two fires that damaged the building in Arkansas. Initially, the insurer agreed to treat the two fires as separate losses but later reversed its position and took the position that both incidents were subject to only a single policy limit payment. As a result, the owner sued the insurer in a California state court for breach of contract and bad faith. The issue presented for the Court of Appeal's review was, under these circumstances, did the insurer have sufficient minimum contacts with California to allow the state court to exercise personal jurisdiction over the company in this action? The Court concluded the answer was "no." Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's order granting the insurance company's motion to quash the service of summons. View "Greenwell v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co." on Justia Law

FTR has constructed buildings for public entities for 15 years. In 1999, FTR submitted the winning bid of $7.345 million to construct a District school. During construction, FTR submitted approximately 150 proposed change orders (PCO). FTR claimed some were necessary because the District’s plans were inadequate or misleading. The District denied most of the PCOs on the grounds that the work was covered under the basic contract, the amounts claimed were excessive, or that a PCO was not timely under the contract. Construction was completed in 2001. Public Contract Code 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 court of appeal held that the trial court properly assessed penalties against District because it did not timely release retained funds; properly rejected the District's action under the False Claims Act, Government Code 12650; and properly assessed prejudgment interest. The court erred in its interpretation of a contract provision imposing time limitations to submit 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 "FTR Int'l, Inc. v. Rio Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

The Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission and Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Association alleged that defendants, who promoted and staged music events at the Coliseum and related venues, paid an employee of the Commission for services related to those music events and that such payments were inappropriate and not disclosed to plaintiffs. The trial court dismissed. The court of appeal reversed in part, finding that the plaintiffs adequately stated causes of action under the conflicts of interest prohibition in Government Code section 1090, conspiracy to defraud, violation of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and accounting. The court upheld dismissal of claims of violation of the False Claims Act, fraud, and negligence. View "Los Angeles Mem'l Coliseum Comm'n v. Insomniac, Inc." on Justia Law

The Fergusons offered to sell their attorney, Yaspan, an interest in a London flat they owned. At Yaspan’s suggestion, the Fergusons hired independent counsel and the parties exchanged five drafts before signing a written agreement in 1995. This agreement enabled the Fergusons to recover nearly all of their original purchase price for the flat and still own half of it. Both the Fergusons and the Yaspans wanted to be partners with each other and not each others’ children, so they agreed that whichever couple outlived the other would have the right to buy out the deceased couple’s interest before that interest could pass to anyone else. The Fergusons were then 70 and 68 years old; the Yaspans were 49 and 47. The trial court concluded that Mrs. Ferguson’s 2011 petition to set aside the agreement as a product of Yaspan’s undue influence was untimely and without merit. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting arguments that the trial court erred by looking at the fairness of the Agreement as a whole rather than focusing on terms Ferguson identified as unfair, and giving insufficient weight to the statistical likelihood that the buyout provision would favor the Yaspans. View "Ferguson v. Yaspan" on Justia Law

Cross-defendant Michael Tope appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of First American Title Insurance Company in a cross-action to recover money under a title insurance policy after default on a real estate loan to purchase and rehabilitate a home. The property was subject to a notice of abatement action issued by San Joaquin County requiring repair of defects in the rehabilitation of the residence. The subject of the suit was that First American allegedly breached the title insurance policy by failing to provide coverage for the notice of abatement action. Plaintiffs, investors in a real estate loan, sued defendants and cross-complainants Stockton Mortgage Real Estate Loan Servicing Corporation (SMRELS), Stockton Mortgage, Inc., Stockton Management & Development, Inc., and Ross Cardinalli Jr. (collectively cross-complainants) for damages arising from cross-complainants' alleged failure to follow up on the status of the release of a notice of abatement action. Cross-complainants, in turn, initiated this suit against First American, Alliance Title Company, and two of Alliance's employees for damages, indemnity, and declaratory relief arising out of First American's refusal to provide coverage under the title insurance policy, and Alliance's alleged representation, on behalf of First American, that it would obtain a release of the notice of abatement action prior to the close of escrow. First American moved for summary judgment mainly on grounds that the notice of abatement action was not covered under the title insurance policy, cross-complainants were not insured under the title insurance policy, and the preliminary title report relied on by cross-complainants was not a contract. The trial court granted First American's motion and entered summary judgment in its favor. Cross-complainants appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. View "Stockton Mortgage, Inc. v. Tope" on Justia Law

A shopping center owner challenged provisions in its commercial lease with Ross, conditioning Ross’s obligation to open a store and pay rent on Mervyn’s operating a store in the shopping center on the lease’s commencement date and allowing Ross terminate the lease if Mervyn’s ceased operations and was not replaced by an acceptable retailer within 12 months. Mervyn’s filed for bankruptcy and closed its store. Ross took possession of the space, never opened for business, never paid rent, and terminated the lease after the 12-month cure period. The trial court found the provisions unenforceable. The jury awarded $672,100 for unpaid rent and $3.1 million in other damages. The court of appeal held that there was no procedural unconscionability. The parties were sophisticated and experienced concerning commercial leases. The rent abatement and termination provisions must be examined separately because they involve separate consequences triggered by different conditions. The determination that rent abatement constituted an unreasonable penalty was supported by findings that Ross did not anticipate it would suffer any damages from Mervyn’s not being open on the lease’s commencement date and the rent forfeited was $39,500 per month. There is no reasonable relationship between $0 of anticipated harm and forfeiture of $39,500 in rent per month. View "Grand Prospect Partners, L.P. v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc." on Justia Law

Bellingham Marine hired Major Engineering to construct a travel lift pier at the Channel Islands Harbor. Bellingham hired Moffatt, a civil engineering firm, to prepare the plans, which required that the concrete have a specific air entrainment and that the concrete, when cured, attain a specific compressive strength. Major's contract with Bellingham provided that if the concrete failed to meet the compression strength standard, that it would be removed and replaced at Major's expense. Major hired State, which submitted a concrete mix design. Moffatt, at the request of Major, reviewed and approved the design. It was not part of Moffatt's job duties. State delivered seven truck loads of wet pre-mixed concrete. After the concrete was cast, Major's testing lab took a sample that showed the concrete had inadequate compressive strength. Major demolished and rebuilt the affected portion of the pier. It sued; State filed a cross-complaint for implied equitable indemnity and contribution, alleging that Moffatt failed to use reasonable care in reviewing and approving the mix design. The court dismissed, finding that Moffatt was not in privity of contract with Major or State and that the cross-complaint was barred by the economic loss rule. The court of appeal affirmed. View "State Ready Mix Iv. Moffatt & Nichol" on Justia Law

Sarun, uninsured when he received emergency services from a hospital owned by Dignity Health, signed an agreement to pay the "full charges, unless other discounts apply.” The agreement explained uninsured patients might qualify for government aid or financial assistance from Dignity. After receiving an invoice for $23,487.90, which reflected a $7,871 “uninsured discount,” and without applying for any other discount or financial assistance, Sarun filed a putative class action, asserting unfair or deceptive business practices (Business and Professions Code 17200) and violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, 1750). The complaint alleged that: Dignity failed to disclose uninsured patients would be required to pay several times more than others receiving the same services, the charges on the invoice were not readily discernable from the agreement, and the charges exceeded the reasonable value of the services. The trial court dismissed, finding that Sarun had not adequately alleged “actual injury.” The court of appeal reversed. Dignity’s argument Sarun was required to apply for financial assistance to allege injury in fact would be akin to requiring Sarun to mitigate damages as a precondition to suit. Mitigation might diminish recovery, butt does not diminish the party’s interest in proving entitlement to recovery. View "Sarun v. Dignity Health" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief against defendants in this action. But the complaint explicitly acknowledged it was “ancillary to” contemplated private arbitration of disputes arising out of the parties’ contractual relationship. The trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and the parties stipulated to stay the action “pending arbitration.” Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this action (purportedly without prejudice) after the claims were submitted to an arbitrator for final resolution and the arbitrator had issued an interim award in favor of defendants. The interim arbitral award was made final without substantive revision, except for adding plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs incurred in the arbitration. The trial court denied defendants’ motion to vacate the dismissal, reasoning that the arbitration and this case were separate proceedings and that plaintiffs had dismissed this action before trial commenced. After its review, the Court of Appeal disagreed with this reasoning and reversed: this lawsuit was based on the same causes of action submitted to the arbitrator; it differed only in the remedies sought. Once the hearing on the merits of the parties’ dispute commenced at the arbitration, it was too late for plaintiffs to dismiss this action without prejudice and thereby avoid an attempt by defendants to recover attorney fees as the prevailing party in this action. View "Mesa Shopping Center-East v. O Hill" on Justia Law