Procedural Posture business litigation attorney

Procedural Posture: business litigation attorney

Appellant property owner sought review of a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County (California), which enjoined the property owner from interfering with respondent adjacent landowners' use of a roadway across the owner's land.

Overview

The landowners purchased real property from parties who used part of the owner's land as a roadway. The landowners continued to use the roadway until they were prevented from doing so by barricades erected by the owner. The landowners brought an action seeking a decree enjoining the owner from interfering with their use of the roadway. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the landowners. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that (1) the evidence established the landowners' actual, open, notorious, continuous, and peaceable use of the roadway, which was adverse to the property owner, and the landowners acquired a prescriptive right as the dominant tenement of the property owner's land; (2) the landowners, as subvendees, had standing to claim title by adverse prescription to an appurtenant right of way over the owner's land because the property could have been acquired by occupancy as well as by transfer under Cal. Civ. Code § 1000, and the landowners had a right to maintain an action for enforcement of an easement under Cal. Civ. Code § 1007; and (3) the adverse use of the landowners' predecessors in interest was properly included in the prescriptive-right period.

Outcome

The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the landowners and against the owner.

Procedural Posture

Petitioners, Texas businesses, sought a writ of mandate against respondent Superior Court of Santa Clara County (California) to direct respondent to vacate its order denying petitioners' motion to dismiss or stay real party in interest California employee's cross-action because Texas was the proper forum under the forum selection clause of the contracts between petitioners and real party in interest.

Overview

Petitioners, Texas businesses, sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunctions against real party in interest California employee alleging that real party in interest had willfully and wrongfully threatened to interfere with petitioners' business relationships. Real party in interest filed a cross-action against petitioners seeking damages. Respondent trial court granted the temporary restraining order against real party in interest and denied petitioners' motion to stay or dismiss real party in interest's action. On petition the court issued a writ of mandate and directed respondent to vacate its order and enter an order staying real party in interest's action pending jurisdiction by a Texas court. The court found that the forum selection clauses in several of the contracts between petitioners and real party in interest required disputes to be resolved in Texas and that the clauses were required to be enforced unless it would be unreasonable. The court held that petitioners' institution of injunctive actions in California did not waive the forum selection clause because the actions for injunctive relief were necessary to protect its business.

Outcome

The court issued a writ of mandate and directed respondent trial court to vacate its order and stay the cross action of real party in interest California employee against petitioner Texas businesses because petitioners' action for injunctive relief against real party in interest was not a legally sufficient circumstance to overcome the rules favoring enforcement of forum selection clauses contained in the contracts between the parties.