California Case Summaries: September 10 to September 21, 2018

In the video above I discuss three free samples of my short, organized summaries of California civil cases published in the last two weeks. You can read my free short, organized summaries of these cases below.
When you need an experienced and capable mediator, arbitrator or referee who knows the law I can help. For scheduling contact my case manager at ADR Services, Inc., Christopher Schuster, (619) 233-1323 or christopher@adrservices.com.
Would you like to know every new published case in your practice areas in less than 1 hour and for less than $20 a month? Just subscribe to my California Case Summaries: Civil™ for $15.99 a month per attorney. To subscribe today click here.
Would you like to know every new published civil and family law decision per quarter in less than 2 hours and for less than $100? Just subscribe to my California Case Summaries: Civil Update Quarterly™ for $99.99 a quarter to get my short, organized summaries with the official case citations. There is no other product like this. To buy a single-user issue for $99.99 click here. Law firms can buy a multi-user (single-office location) issue for $499.99 by clicking here.

 

CALIFORNIA CASE SUMMARIES™

CALIFORNA COURTS OF APPEAL

Attorney Fees

Chacker v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 4474732: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order awarding attorney fees of $46,827.40 to defendants after the court sustained their demurrer without leave to amend to a complaint requesting a stay of a non-judicial foreclosure and other causes of action. The Court of Appeal ruled that the trust deed paragraph did not allow a separate award of attorney fees. It only provided that attorney fees could be added to the note. The trust deed allowed the lender to take numerous actions, including incurring attorney’s fees, to protect its interest. It then provided that “any amounts disbursed by Lender under this Section 9 shall become additional debt of Borrower secured by this Security Instrument.” The case was remanded to the trial court for the entry of a new order authorizing $46,827.40 to be added to the outstanding balance plaintiff owes as the result of her default on the promissory note. (C.A. 2nd, September 19, 2018.)

Corporations

Ontiveros v. Constable (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 4441746: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order dismissing plaintiff’s action for involuntary dissolution of the corporation after it had granted defendant’s motion to stay the proceedings and appoint appraisers to fix the value of plaintiff’s stock under Corporations Code section 2000. Once a special proceeding under section 2000 is initiated, it “supplants” the cause of action for involuntary dissolution. (See Go v. Pacific Health Services, Inc. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 522, 530.) At that point, the parties give up their right to litigate the involuntary dissolution action subject to the special proceeding outlined in section 2000, and the plaintiff can no longer dismiss the involuntary dissolution claim under Code of Civil Procedure section 581(e). (C.A. 4th, September 18, 2018.)

Torts

Ayon v. Esquire Deposition Solutions (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 4520088: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment for defendant in a personal injury case where defendant was sued under vicarious liability. The driver of the car that hit plaintiff was employed by defendant to schedule depositions. She was talking on the phone with a court reporter who worked for defendant at the time of the accident. Both the driver and the court reporter testified the call was a personal call and did not relate to court reporting work. Plaintiff could not offer any direct evidence that the driver was operating within the scope of her employment at the time of the accident. Plaintiff attacked the driver’s credibility, but this was not enough to defeat the summary judgment because Code of Civil Procedure section 437c (e) provides that “summary judgment shall not be denied on grounds of credibility.” (C.A. 4th, September 21, 2018.)

Copyright © 2018 Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

 

Leave A Response

* Denotes Required Field