Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of James Cameron and Lightstorm Entertainment, Inc. on claims that defendants fraudulently expressed interest in developing plaintiff’s science fiction story KRZ and used parts of that story in Cameron’s 2009 film Avatar. Avatar is a science fiction film set in the future on Pandora, a moon of a fictional gas giant planet, occupied by an indigenous species of humanoids called Na’vi and by humans affiliated with the Resources Development Administration, and its “Sec-Ops” security force. KRZ takes place in the future mostly on Europa, an ice-covered moon of Jupiter. KRZ tells the story of a corporate assassin who works for the Malloc super-corporation, which harvests organisms from ocean vents beneath Europa’s icy surface. To do so, the corporation uses humans as well as organic-bionic hybrid robots called “KRY’s,” which have “Y’s” on their foreheads and “limitation chips” that block emotions and free will. KRZ is a robot with a smaller limitation chip than KRY’s and is self-aware and self-motivated. The court concluded that plaintiff's contract and fiduciary duty claims failed because there was no similarity between the projects as a matter of law; plaintiff's fraud claims fail because he has not offered evidence raising a triable issue of material fact; and plaintiff's appeal of the trial court's denial of his motion for discovery sanctions is moot. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Ryder v. Lightstorm Enter." on Justia Law

Defendant CarMax Auto Superstores California LLC (CarMax) advertised and sold cars as "certified" used vehicles. It sold a 2008 used Jeep Wrangler to plaintiff Jessica Brooks. CarMax had promoted the Jeep as a certified used vehicle, inspected the Jeep, made some repairs, and ultimately placed a signed "Certified Quality Inspection" document (the CQI Certificate) for the Jeep in the Jeep's glove box. The CQI Certificate remained in the glove box at all relevant times. Several months after Brooks purchased the Jeep, she drove it through a deep puddle and the engine was so severely damaged that it had to be replaced. She thereafter demanded (among other things) that CarMax rescind the purchase agreement and buy the Jeep back. When CarMax rejected her demands, she filed this action alleging it violated Vehicle Code section 11713.18, because neither the content of the CQI Certificate nor its method of delivery to her complied with CarMax's duties under section 11713.18. Brooks pleaded claims against CarMax under California's Consumer's Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law. The trial court ruled Brooks had suffered no damage from CarMax's alleged violations of section 11713.18, and therefore concluded she did not have standing to pursue claims under the CLRA or the UCL. Brooks argued on appeal to the Court of Appeal that reversal was warranted because she adequately demonstrated the type of damage necessary to prosecute a claim under the CLRA or the UCL or, alternatively, she was entitled to prosecute her claims under the CLRA or the UCL without showing any injury. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court. View "Brooks v. CarMax Auto Superstores" on Justia Law

Appellant C. Tucker Cheadle, as administrator of the estate of Robert F. Obarr, appealed an order denying his motion to disqualify counsel for respondent DP Pham LLC. Pham made three loans to Obarr totaling nearly $3 million, and Obarr secured each loan by granting Pham a lien on a mobilehome park he owned in Westminster (Property). This action arose when Obarr allegedly agreed to sell the Property to two different buyers. In March 2013, Obarr allegedly contracted to sell the Property to S.C.D. Enterprises (SCD). SCD promptly assigned the purchase agreement to Westminster MHP Associates, LP (Westminster), which allegedly opened escrow on the Property with Obarr. According to Westminster, it satisfied all contingencies for the sale within 10 days of opening escrow. In April 2013, Westminster filed suit alleging contract claims against Obarr. Obarr died unexpectedly in August. The trial court appointed Cheadle as a special administrator for Obarr’s estate and in that capacity substituted Cheadle for Obarr as a party to this action. Cheadle then filed a cross-complaint alleging an interpleader claim against both Westminster and Pham concerning the Property. Based on Pham’s loans to Obarr, Cheadle also alleged claims against Pham for usury, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, money had and received, unjust enrichment, reformation, and violation of the unfair competition law. Cheadle contended disqualification was required because Pham’s counsel improperly obtained copies of privileged communications between Obarr and his attorney, and used those communications to oppose another party’s summary judgment motion in this case. The trial court denied the disqualification motion because it concluded the communications were not privileged. The Court of Appeal reversed. After reviewing copies of the communications, the trial court concluded they were not privileged based on their content. "A court, however, may not review the contents of a communication to determine whether the attorney-client privilege protects that communication. The attorney-client privilege is an absolute privilege that prevents disclosure, no matter how necessary or relevant to the lawsuit. The privilege attaches to all confidential communications between an attorney and a client regardless of whether the information communicated is in fact privileged. Accordingly, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to review a communication to determine whether the attorney-client privilege protects it." View "DP Pham v. Cheadle" on Justia Law

This case arose under California's Unclaimed Property Law (UPL). Plaintiff Vanacore and Associates, Inc., dba Vanacore International (Vanacore) was a private investigation firm that specialized in the recovery of unclaimed property. Vanacore entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with defendant Kenneth Rosenfeld. The MOU contemplated that Vanacore would locate and recover shares of stock belonging to Rosenfeld in exchange for a fee. After signing the agreement, Rosenfeld found and recovered the shares himself and refused to pay Vanacore's fee. Vanacore sued for breach of contract, fraud, and unjust enrichment. Rosenfeld demurred on the ground that the MOU violated the Unclaimed Property Law, which precluded certain asset recovery agreements. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, finding the MOU illegal and unenforceable. Finding no reversible error in the trial court's judgment, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "Vanacore and Associates, Inc. v. Rosenfeld" on Justia Law

Pursuant to Public Contract Code section 7107, when a project owner pays a direct contractor the amount it had previously withheld as retentions, the direct contractor must pay its subcontractors their share of the retention within seven days or face penalties. The court concluded that, in this case, the decision by the owner to stop withholding future retentions and pay full progress payments to the contractor was not equivalent to a payment by the owner of past retentions under section 7107. Accordingly, the court concluded that the subcontractor is not entitled to late payment penalties under section 7107. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Blois Construction v. FCI/Fluor/Parsons" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant CWPSC, Inc. (CW Painting) appealed a trial court order denying its motion to compel its former employee, plaintiff-respondent Martha Carbajal, to arbitrate her wage and hour claims under the arbitration provision in her employment agreement. The trial court denied the motion because it found the arbitration provision was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. After review, the Court of Appeal found: (1) the arbitration provision was procedurally unconscionable because it was part of an adhesion contract CW Painting imposed on Carbajal as a term of her employment; (2) the arbitration provision was substantively unconscionable because it allowed CW Painting to obtain injunctive relief in court while requiring Carbajal to seek relief through arbitration, it waives the statutory requirement that CW Painting post a bond or undertaking to obtain injunctive relief, and it effectively waives Carbajal’s statutory right to recover her attorney fees if she prevailed on her Labor Code claims; and (3) pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, the party asserting the FAA bore the burden to show it applied by presenting evidence establishing the contract with the arbitration provision has a substantial relationship to interstate commerce, and CW Painting failed to timely present such evidence. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court’s order. View "Carbajal v. CWPSC, Inc." on Justia Law

The adult children and heirs of songwriter Terry Gilkyson, a member of the band The Easy Riders, filed suit against Disney, alleging that Disney had breached its contractual obligation to pay royalties in connection with the licensing or other disposition of the mechanical reproduction rights to Gilkyson’s songs. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit after sustaining Disney’s demurrer to the first amended complaint without leave to amend, ruling the Gilkyson heirs’ causes of action were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. The court concluded that the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer pursuant to the statute-of-limitations bar where the continuous doctrine applies to plaintiffs' contract claims. In this case, Disney’s obligation to pay royalties based on its licensing or other disposition of the mechanical reproduction rights to Gilkyson’s songs was unquestionably a continuing one. While portions of the Gilkyson heirs’ contract claim are undoubtedly time-barred, the action is timely as to those breaches occurring within the four-year limitations period preceding the filing of the original lawsuit. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with directions. View "Gilkyson v. Disney Enter." on Justia Law

Quest filed suit seeking payment from Angeles for out-of-network laboratory testing services ordered by in-network physicians for Angeles patients. The trial court granted summary adjudication for Angeles for all but two causes of action that were subsequently dismissed. Summary judgment was then entered for Angeles. The court concluded that the referral of specimens to Quest by Angeles physicians who either misidentified the patient‘s IPA/payor or failed to identify an IPA/payor at all did not create an implied-in-fact contract that Angeles would pay for the tests; there is no evidence of an agency relationship between Angeles and its in-network physicians; Angeles does not exercise control over the manner in which the physicians provide medical care to their patients; and the physicians who used Quest drop boxes after the November 30, 2009 termination date did so based on their membership in a Quest-affiliated IPA, their mistaken belief that the patient also belonged to that IPA, or some other error. The court also concluded that there is no implied-in-law or quasi-contract where there is no evidence that Angeles actually paid its in-network laboratory a lower capitation rate as a result of the work that was misdirected to Quest and Quest has not identified a statute or regulation that requires an IPA to pay an out-of-network laboratory where there is no contractual obligation to do so. The court rejected Quest's remaining claims and affirmed the judgment. View "Unilab Corp. v. Angeles-IPA" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from a dispute between defendant, a doctor, and a medical management company, Epic, with which he had contracted to supply non-medical management services to his practice. The arbitrator ruled in favor of Epic and the trial court confirmed the award. The doctor appealed, arguing that the arbitration award cannot stand because the contract, as interpreted by the arbitrator, is illegal. The court concluded, however, that the issue is not reviewable because the arbitrator did not exceed her powers by finding the parties had modified the agreement, and the award may not be vacated for illegality where the award is not reviewable for illegality in the entirety; it was not reviewable under the statutory public policy exception; and there is no legal violation as a matter of law. Finally, the court concluded that there was no prejudicial limitation on the doctor's evidence. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Epic Medical Mgmt. v. Paquette" on Justia Law

On March 28, 2014, real party in interest PCH Enterprises, Inc. sued defendants Sallie Cribley-Cole and Anna Gonzalez for breach of contract, specific performance, and declaratory relief. It alleged defendants failed to perform on a written agreement to sell a certain parcel of real property to PCH. PCH recorded a lis pendens on the same day it filed the complaint. No proof of service accompanied the lis pendens. Petitioner Rey Sanchez Investments sought to intervene, claiming it was the true owner of the property pursuant to a grant deed recorded April 2, 2014. Petitioner moved to expunge the lis pendens on grounds that there were technical defects in the service. PCH offered a proof of service that the lis pendens was personally served on Cribley-Cole in November 2014. The trial court denied the motion to expunge. On appeal, petitioner argued the lis pendens was completely void and subject to expungement because service was improper. The Court of Appeal agreed service was improper and reversed the trial court's judgment by way of a writ of mandate. View "Rey Sanchez Investments v. Superior Court" on Justia Law