Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The Comedy Store, a stand-up comedy venue in Los Angeles, was forced to close for over a year due to COVID-19 restrictions. In July 2021, the Store hired Moss Adams LLP, an accounting firm, to help apply for a Shuttered Venue Operator Grant from the U.S. Small Business Administration. The parties signed an agreement that included a Washington choice of law provision and a forum selection clause mandating disputes be resolved in Washington state courts, along with a predispute jury trial waiver. The Store alleged Moss Adams failed to inform it of the grant program's impending expiration, causing it to miss the application deadline and lose an $8.5 million grant.The Store initially filed a complaint in the United States District Court in Los Angeles, but the case was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Store then refiled in the Los Angeles Superior Court, asserting claims including gross negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. Moss Adams moved to dismiss or stay the action based on the forum selection clause. The trial court granted the motion, contingent on Moss Adams stipulating that the Store could exercise its right to a jury trial in Washington. Moss Adams provided such a stipulation, and the trial court signed an order affirming the Store's right to a jury trial in Washington.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court found that the trial court erred by not properly applying the reversed burden of proof, which required Moss Adams to show that litigating in Washington would not diminish the Store's unwaivable right to a jury trial. The appellate court concluded that Moss Adams did not meet this burden, as Washington courts have enforced predispute jury waivers, and the stipulation offered by Moss Adams was not a binding modification of the agreement. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded with instructions to deny Moss Adams's motion to dismiss or stay the action. View "The Comedy Store v. Moss Adams LLP" on Justia Law

LCPFV, LLC owned a warehouse with a faulty sewer pipe. After experiencing toilet backups, LCPFV hired Rapid Plumbing to fix the issue for $47,883.40. Rapid's work was unsatisfactory, leading LCPFV to hire another plumber for $44,077 to correct the problem. LCPFV sued Rapid Plumbing, which initially appeared in court but later defaulted. LCPFV sought a default judgment of $1,081,263.80, including attorney fees and punitive damages. The trial court awarded a default judgment of $120,319.22, significantly less than LCPFV's demand, and also awarded $11,852.90 in sanctions.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, presided over by Judge Mark V. Mooney, reviewed the case. The court scrutinized LCPFV's default judgment package and found the requested amount excessive. The court emphasized its role as a gatekeeper in default judgment cases, ensuring that only appropriate claims are granted. The court rejected LCPFV's use of requests for admissions obtained after Rapid Plumbing had ceased participating in the case, citing a lack of candor and evidentiary value.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, agreeing that the trial court acted within its discretion in rejecting the inflated default judgment request. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision to award $120,319.22, including $91,960.40 for breach of contract and $4,948.46 in attorney fees, rejecting the fraud and punitive damages claims. The court also affirmed the sanctions award and the decision to grant prejudgment interest from the date of the lawsuit filing, not from the date of payment to Rapid Plumbing. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's rulings and emphasized the importance of judicial vigilance in default judgment cases. View "LCPFV v. Somatdary" on Justia Law

Govind Vaghashia and other plaintiffs appealed a trial court order denying their motion to vacate a settlement agreement with Prashant and Mita Vaghashia. The settlement involved a $35 million payment from the Govind Parties to Prashant and Mita, with specific terms about collateral and property interests. Disputes arose over the interpretation and execution of the agreement, leading to motions to enforce the settlement by both parties. The trial court enforced the agreement largely in favor of Prashant and Mita, rejecting the Govind Parties' interpretations.The trial court found that the Govind Parties were judicially estopped from challenging the settlement agreement after previously moving to enforce it. The court concluded that the Govind Parties' current position that the agreement was unenforceable was inconsistent with their earlier position that it was enforceable. The court also found that the Govind Parties had not taken their initial position due to ignorance, fraud, or mistake.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the elements of judicial estoppel were met: the Govind Parties had taken two totally inconsistent positions in judicial proceedings, and the trial court had accepted their initial position that the settlement was enforceable. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's application of judicial estoppel and upheld the denial of the motion to vacate the settlement agreement. The court also denied Prashant and Mita's motion to dismiss the appeal based on the disentitlement doctrine, finding insufficient evidence of non-compliance with trial court orders by the Govind Parties. View "Vaghashia v. Vaghashia" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over two adjacent properties, each containing a multi-unit apartment complex with on-site parking. The plaintiffs, Eli and Maha Batta, sought to establish easement rights for additional parking and trash dumpsters on a disputed area of the adjacent property owned by the defendant, Therese Hunt. The Battas purchased their property from Hunt in 1994 and claimed that their tenants had used the disputed area for parking and dumpsters since then. Hunt refused to sign a parking covenant in 2019, leading the Battas to file a lawsuit seeking to quiet title to an easement by grant, prescription, or irrevocable license, and for breach of contract.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County conducted a bench trial and ruled in favor of the Battas, finding they had established easement rights by oral grant, prescription, and implication. The court ordered that the easement would expire upon a bona fide sale of either property. Both parties appealed the decision. Hunt argued that the trial court erred in granting the easement rights, while the Battas contended that the court abused its discretion by ruling that the easement would expire upon a sale.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case and found that the trial court's findings were inconsistent. The trial court had found both that Hunt had granted an easement and that the Battas' use of the property was adverse, which are mutually exclusive conditions. The appellate court concluded that these inconsistent findings required reversal. Additionally, the appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the Battas to amend their complaint to add a cause of action for an easement by implication without giving Hunt the opportunity to rebut the evidence. Consequently, the judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Batta v. Hunt" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, employees of the State of California providing dental care to inmates, filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for time spent on pre- and post-shift safety and security activities. These activities included going through security and handling alarm devices. The defendants, including the State of California and related departments, filed a demurrer, arguing that these activities were not compensable under the Portal-to-Portal Act of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, leading to the plaintiffs' appeal.The trial court ruled that the activities in question were not integral and indispensable to the plaintiffs' principal work of providing dental care, thus not compensable under the FLSA. The plaintiffs argued that the trial court improperly decided a factual question and that their claims were viable. The defendants maintained that the trial court's decision was correct and also argued that the plaintiffs' claims were precluded by the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) governing their employment, that the relevant statutes did not apply to government employers, that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust contractual remedies, and that the claims were time-barred.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, concluded that the trial court erred in not accepting the plaintiffs' allegations as true for the purposes of the demurrer. The appellate court found that the plaintiffs had stated a claim for breach of contract and that the defendants' affirmative defense of failure to exhaust contractual remedies could not be resolved at the demurrer stage. The court also determined that the plaintiffs' contract claim was not time-barred. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision in part and reversed it in part, allowing the breach of contract claim to proceed. View "Bath v. State" on Justia Law

In November 2014, the plaintiff purchased a recreational vehicle (RV) from a dealership, with the defendant bank financing the purchase. The sales contract inaccurately reflected the downpayment as $19,100 in cash instead of $1,000 in cash and $18,100 in trade-in value. The plaintiff later discovered issues with the RV and filed a lawsuit in February 2017, alleging violations of the Automobile Sales Finance Act (ASFA) due to the incorrect downpayment disclosure.The Superior Court of Fresno County reviewed the case and concluded that the four-year statute of limitations for written contracts applied, rather than the one-year statute for statutory penalties. The court granted summary adjudication in favor of the plaintiff against the dealership for violating the ASFA, and the dealership's liability was extended to the bank under the Federal Trade Commission’s holder rule. The court entered judgment requiring the bank to accept the return of the RV and pay the plaintiff $42,263.64.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case and determined that the rescission and restitution remedy under the ASFA is a penalty. The court concluded that the one-year statute of limitations for actions upon a statute for a penalty or forfeiture applied. The court noted that the ASFA imposes strict liability without regard to actual damages or fault, and the legislative history indicated the remedy was intended as a penalty. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Pompey v. Bank of Stockton" on Justia Law

A salesperson from Elite Home Remodeling, Inc. visited the home of Harold and Lucy West, both in their 90s and suffering from dementia, to discuss solar panel installation and home renovation. The salesperson, Ilai Mitmiger, allegedly obtained Harold's electronic signature on a loan agreement with Solar Mosaic LLC (Mosaic) through Deon, the Wests' daughter, who provided her email for the documents. The loan agreement was signed electronically in Harold's name within seconds, despite Harold's apparent lack of understanding and technical ability.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied Mosaic's petition to compel arbitration, finding that Mosaic failed to prove the existence of an agreement to arbitrate. The court determined that Mosaic did not establish that Harold signed the loan documents or that Deon had the authority to bind Harold to the agreement.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, affirmed the trial court's order. The appellate court held that the evidence presented, including Harold's dementia and lack of technical skills, created a factual dispute about the authenticity of Harold's electronic signatures. The court also found that Mosaic did not prove Deon had the authority to act as Harold's agent or that Harold ratified the agreement during a recorded phone call with Mosaic. The court concluded that the recorded call did not demonstrate Harold's awareness or understanding of the loan agreement, thus failing to establish ratification. The order denying the petition to compel arbitration was affirmed. View "West v. Solar Mosaic, LLC" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, an entrepreneur, helped form a medical business with a surgeon. The business, structured as a limited liability company (LLC), operated surgery centers and distributed profits to its members, including the plaintiff. Over time, the plaintiff became inactive but continued to receive substantial profits. Tensions arose when the plaintiff refused buyout offers from other members. The plaintiff then directed his attorney to send a threatening letter to various stakeholders, alleging illegal activities within the company. This letter caused significant concern among the recipients, leading the company to warn the plaintiff that he would be ejected without compensation if he did not retract his statements within 30 days. The plaintiff refused, and the company subsequently ousted him, valuing his shares at zero.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County rejected all of the plaintiff's claims. The court found that the plaintiff's letter constituted a "terminating event" under the company's operating agreement, justifying his ejection without compensation. The court also ruled that the business judgment rule protected the company's decision to remove the plaintiff, as it was made in the best interests of the company. The plaintiff's claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing were all dismissed.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, affirmed the lower court's judgment. The appellate court held that the business judgment rule applied, as the company's decision to eject the plaintiff was rational and made in good faith. The court also found that the plaintiff's loss of his shares was not an illegal forfeiture, as it was reasonably related to the harm his actions could have caused the company. The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments regarding procedural irregularities and the valuation of his shares, concluding that the company's actions were justified and lawful. View "Tuli v. Specialty Surgical Center of Thousand Oaks, LLC" on Justia Law

The plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the defendant for a new vehicle, which later exhibited multiple defects. Despite several repair attempts, the issues persisted. The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging violations of California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, seeking various forms of relief including replacement or restitution, damages, and attorney fees.The case proceeded to trial in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, where the jury found the defendant liable and awarded the plaintiff damages. However, the jury did not find the defendant’s violation to be willful, thus no civil penalties were awarded. Subsequently, both parties filed motions regarding costs and attorney fees. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant, limiting the plaintiff to pre-offer costs and attorney fees, and awarding the defendant post-offer costs based on a prior settlement offer under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court addressed two main issues: whether a section 998 offer consisting of two simultaneous offers is valid, and whether an offer that promises to pay for statutory categories of damages with disputes resolved by a third party is sufficiently certain. The court concluded that simultaneous offers are generally invalid under section 998 due to the uncertainty they create for the trial court in determining whether the judgment is more favorable than the offer. However, since only one of the defendant’s two offers was invalid, the remaining valid offer was operative. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the plaintiff was limited to pre-offer costs and attorney fees, and the defendant was entitled to post-offer costs. View "Gorobets v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC" on Justia Law

Kenneth and Janet Lathrop purchased a motorhome from a dealer in California, manufactured by Thor Motor Coach, Inc. They later sued the dealer and Thor under the Song-Beverly Consumers Warranty Act and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), alleging defects in the motorhome and failure to perform necessary repairs. Thor moved to stay the action based on a forum selection clause in its warranty, which designated Indiana as the exclusive forum for disputes and included a jury trial waiver and an Indiana choice-of-law clause. Thor acknowledged these provisions were unenforceable under California law and offered to stipulate that California substantive rights would apply in an Indiana court.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted Thor’s motion to stay, finding the forum selection clause mandatory and not unreasonable. The court placed the burden on the Lathrops to show that enforcing the clause was unreasonable. The Lathrops appealed, arguing that the trial court applied the wrong standard and that Thor did not meet its burden to show that litigating in Indiana would not diminish their unwaivable rights under California law.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court erred by placing the burden on the Lathrops instead of Thor. The appellate court held that Thor did not meet its burden to show that litigating in Indiana would not substantially diminish the Lathrops’ rights under the Song-Beverly Act and the CLRA. The court also found that enforcing the forum selection clause based on Thor’s proposed stipulation would violate California public policy and that the stipulation was insufficient to protect the Lathrops’ unwaivable statutory rights. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s order granting the motion to stay and directed the trial court to deny the motion. View "Lathrop v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc." on Justia Law