Procedural Posture: civil defense lawyer

Procedural Posture: civil defense lawyer

Plaintiffs and defendants appealed an order of the Superior Court of Los Angles County (California), in plaintiffs' suit for breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Overview

Suit was filed against plaintiffs alleging copyright and trademark infringement. Defendant was plaintiffs' insurance provider. Plaintiffs demanded independent counsel which defendant denied. Plaintiffs then selected independent counsel and a settlement was reached in the infringement suit. Plaintiffs brought suit against defendant alleging breach of contract, and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Defendant moved for summary adjudication stating the action was barred by plaintiffs' settlement of the underlying action. The trial court found that plaintiffs were not entitled to a presumption that the underlying claim was legitimate, but that lack of independent counsel prevented assertion of valid defenses. However, defendant was held to have a duty to defend. Both parties appealed. The court affirmed concerning the presumption but reversed as to the duty to provide legal counsel, as plaintiffs' mere possibility of conflict did not require independent counsel.

Outcome

Affirmed in part; plaintiffs were not entitled to presumption that they were liable and yet had a viable defense to the claim. Reversed in part; defendant did not have a duty to provide independent legal counsel merely based on the possibility of conflict.

Procedural Posture

Procedural Posture: ADA defense attorney

Defendant buyer sought review of the portion of the judgment entered by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) awarding attorneys' fees to plaintiff seller and denying attorneys' fees to the buyer, in the seller's action for declaratory relief for a determination that the buyer was obligated to pay a sales or use tax levied by the state.

Overview

The seller and the buyer's contract provided that the buyer would indemnify and hold the seller harmless from paying any sales tax in connection with the transfer of an airplane. The state levied a sales tax. The seller gave notice to the buyer, who denied liability for The tax. After the seller unsuccessfully petitioned the state for redetermination of the tax, the seller filed an action for declaratory relief. The buyer then paid the tax. The trial court ordered that any refund of the tax by the state should be paid directly to The buyer, awarded attorneys' fees to the seller, and denied the buyer's motion for attorneys' fees. On appeal, the court affirmed. The court held that the buyer's conduct was an anticipatory breach of the contract. Had the buyer informed the seller of its secret intention to pay the tax,Then the seller would have had no reason to file the declaratory action. Thus, the seller was entitled to attorneys' fees under the contract. The judgment directing that any refund be paid directly to the buyer was not a judgment in favor of the buyer, but a statement of the obvious. Thus, the buyer was not entitled to attorneys' fees.

Outcome

The court affirmed the judgment by the trial court awarding attorneys' fees to the seller and denying attorneys' fees to the buyer in the seller's action for declaratory relief to have it determined that the buyer was obligated to pay a sales tax.

Procedural Posture: corporate attorneys in California

Procedural Posture: corporate attorneys in California

Respondent riparian landowners brought suit against appellant power company, seeking to enjoin the company's use of river waters, which were subject to an earlier contract between the company and the landowners' predecessors. The Superior Court of Fresno County, California, sustained the landowners' demurrers to the company's asserted defenses and barred evidence on the defenses. It issued the injunction. The company appealed.

    

Overview

The trial court erred in sustaining demurrers to many of the company's defenses and in denying it the right to offer evidence relating to those defenses. Significantly, the court found that the denials the company made in its first answer, which included denial of the riparian nature of the lands in question, denial of ownership of the land by the landowners, and denial of the landowners' successorship to the key contract interests, raised questions that should have been considered by the trial court. Although the granting of an injunction was discretionary in the trial court, denials of the nature made by the company constituted competent defenses and required an evidentiary showing before an injunction should issue. The court found that other defenses asserted by the company, including improper use of the land by the landowners, waiver of the landowners' rights, and a statute of limitations defense were significant enough to have required the trial court to evidence in their support. Because of these errors, the granting of the injunction in favor of the landowners was also error.

Outcome

The court reversed the judgment, granting the landowners an injunction against the company's use of river waters, and remanded the case to the trial court for a trial on the merits. The court directed the trial court to overrule the landowners' demurrers to several of the company's separate defenses.

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.