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.

Overview

Overview

HOLDINGS: [1]-A technology reporter who created video segments for use on television news programs and station websites could not succeed on a common law claim for misappropriation of his name and likeness because he could not show lack of consent to the manner in which licensee stations used his material; through its contract with the reporter, the television station he worked for owned the material, and both the contracting station and its licensees had the right to display, distribute, and promote the material; [2]-Those rights did not terminate with the reporter's employment; [3]-For purposes of a claim under Civ. Code, § 3344, the licensee had no knowledge of the allegedly unauthorized use, even if it were without consent.

 

Outcome: tortious interference with contract California

Peremptory writ issued.

 

Procedural Posture

Plaintiff corporation sought review of the judgment by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which granted defendant a judgment of nonsuit in an action to recover money damages from defendant on an offer to purchase capital stock of a corporation.

 

Overview

The record established the case was tried on complaint, to which there were a number of exhibits attached as a part thereof and the answer purporting to deny all of the averments of the complaint, and setting up an affirmative defense by alleging that defendant was at all times was ready, able, and willing to perform the contract or agreement sued upon, but that plaintiff and its alleged assignors were not. The trial court granted a nonsuit after defendant proceeded with the defense and presented testimony. The court reversed, holding that a nonsuit should have been granted only when, disregarding conflicting evidence and giving plaintiff's evidence all the value it was legally entitled, indulging in every legitimate inference which may have been drawn, the result was there was no evidence of sufficient substantiality to have supported a verdict in favor of plaintiff. The court held there was conflicting evidence, as plaintiff contended defendant never notified it of his readiness to complete the sale of stock, which was sufficient to have precluded a nonsuit. Further, the court held that plaintiff's request to amend its pleadings should have been granted.

Outcome

The court reversed the judgment of nonsuit granted to defendant in plaintiff's action to recover damages from defendant on an offer to purchase capital stock of a corporation.

Overview

HOLDINGS: [1]-The appellate court held that a gas company had to bear all of the costs of relocation of its pipelines. The PUC is a governmental entity with the authority to acquire, construct, maintain, and operate public transit systems. It necessarily followed that, when PUC demanded that the company relocate its pipeline to make way for an extension of its existing rail line, it had a proper governmental purpose; [2]-The appellate court also held that at those points where the company held licenses for its pipelines, once PUC terminated the licenses, the company could be held liable for trespass; [3]-The opinion in Bello v. ABA Energy Corp., which is the leading authority concerning the scope of a local government's power to allow a utility to use the local government's right-of-way over a third party's land, was fully applicable to this dispute, even though PUC is a railroad.

Nakase Law Firm litigates sexual harassment

Outcome

The trial court's order summarily adjudicating the PUC's trespass cause of action was reversed. In all other respects, the orders on the cross-motions for summary adjudication were affirmed. The judgment was reversed, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings on the trespass cause of action.