Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

G Companies Management, LLC, a California limited liability company, appealed an order staying its cross-complaint against LREP Arizona, LLC, based on the forum selection clause in a loan agreement between the parties. The cross-complaint alleged multiple causes of action, all based on the assertion that the interest rates charged in the loan agreement were usurious under California law, and G Companies contended the trial court erred because a forum selection clause was not enforceable if doing so would deprive a California resident of the protections of the state's fundamental public policy. The trial court held enforcement of the selection clause was appropriate because: (1) the loan transaction was substantially related to the chosen forum (Arizona); and (2) California had a complicated relationship with usury and allowed unlimited interest rates to be charged in numerous circumstances. LREP contended the court’s decision was correct because the “many exceptions” to California’s interest rate limits demonstrate that the prohibition of usury “is not a fundamental policy” in California. To this, the Court of Appeal disagreed and therefore reversed. "By virtue of its inclusion in article XV, section 1, of our Constitution, and because it cannot be waived, we find that California’s usury law does reflect a significant public policy. It prohibits money lending at rates higher than specified, even while recognizing numerous exceptions to those rate limitations. The complexity of the law does not imply a lack of commitment to the policy. To the contrary, such a fine-tuned approach suggests that significant effort has gone into determining the circumstances under which interest rate limitations are necessary for the protection of Californians." View "G Companies Management, LLC v. LREP Arizona LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff signed an arbitration contract with an employer called Intelex Enterprises, LLC. While working for Intelex, Plaintiff also worked for other firms (Other Firms). These Other Firms were legally separate from Intelex but functionally related to it. The Other Firms did not contract for arbitration with Plaintiff. After termination, Plaintiff sued the Other Firms but not Intelex: Intelex has never been a party to the case. The Other Firms moved to compel arbitration based on Plaintiff’s agreement with Intelex. The trial court denied the Other Firms’ motion to enforce a contract they had not signed.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court held that the Other Firms cannot equitably estop Defendant because they do not show she is trying to profit from some unfair action. They have no proof of agency. And they are not third-party beneficiaries of Intelex’s contract. The court explained that the Other Firms point to six places in the record they say show agency, but these materials do not measure up. The citation to Plaintiff’s complaint spotlights text that omits Intelex and cannot show agency. A different citation is to their attorney’s declaration recounting irrelevant procedural history. Other citations refer to Plaintiff’s admission that she worked for both Intelex and the Other Firms. This admission does not establish agency. View "Hernandez v. Meridian Management Services, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Sisyphian for (1) failure to pay minimum wage, (2) failure to pay overtime wages, (3) failure to pay wages for missed meal periods, (4) failure to pay wages for missed rest breaks, (5) waiting time penalties (6) failure to provide accurate wage statements and (7) unfair competition. In reliance on the arbitration clause in the Entertainment Agreement, the trial court granted Sisyphian’s motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s claims. The arbitrator concluded that Plaintiff’s complaint contained a viable prayer for attorney fees for the claims on which she prevailed. Plaintiff filed a petition to confirm the final arbitration award. Following the entry of judgment for Plaintiff in the amount of $105,109.75, Sisyphian appealed. Sisyphian argued that the trial court erred in confirming the final arbitration award because, in reconsidering its initial attorney fees order, the arbitrator exceeded his powers   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court explained that because Plaintiff’s petition to confirm was procedurally proper because no party sought dismissal of Plaintiff’s petition, and because Sisyphian’s filings seeking to vacate or correct the arbitration award were not timely filed, the trial court, in this case, was obligated to confirm the final arbitration award. Further, because Sisyphian forfeited its right to seek to vacate or correct the final arbitration award before the trial court, the court may not consider its arguments to do so on appeal. View "Darby v. Sisyphian, LLC" on Justia Law

A building owner operates a building in Los Angeles with retail space on the ground floor and office space, storage units, and parking on the roof. In 2012, the owner contracted with Western Waterproofing Company, Inc. to remove the roof parking surface and recoat it. The owner filed the first suit on theories of breach of an express warranty against product failure and breaches of implied warranties. The owner alleged the entire coating was beginning to fail and demanded the company remove and replace it all rather than merely undertake a leak-by-leak repair. After a jury found the company that coated the roof was not at fault, the building owner sued a second time when more leaks appeared. The trial court rightly found claim preclusion barred the new lawsuit and granted summary judgment for the company.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court held that the owner should have brought all claims about the company’s installation in its first suit. The owner neither alleged nor presented evidence of a new or latent way the company’s work could have harmed the owner. The court explained that the second suit simply tried to relitigate a resolution the owner disliked and would prefer to escape. Claim preclusion bars this repetitive attack on finality. View "5th AND LA v. Western Waterproofing Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Amazon fulfills orders for products sold by third-party merchants through a program it calls “Fulfillment by Amazon” (FBA). According to the First Amended Complaint (FAC), the state agency responsible for collecting sales and use tax is the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (DTFA) has historically not collected from Amazon sales and use taxes for products sold through the FBA program.   Plaintiff filed a taxpayer action under section 526a seeking a declaration that the DTFA “has a mandatory duty to assess and collect” sales and use tax specifically from Amazon for products sold through the FBA program. The DTFA and its Director and the Amazon entities that Plaintiff named in his FAC as Real Parties in Interest all demurred to the FAC. The trial court sustained Respondents’ demurrers without leave to amend.   The Second Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s order sustaining Respondents’ demurrers. The court explained that no statute or regulation conclusively establishes that the DTFA must pursue Amazon for sales and use taxes related to FBA transactions. The language of Revenue and Taxation Code section 6015, subdivision (a) makes it clear that there may be multiple “persons” who the DTFA may regard as “retailers” for the purposes of a single transaction. The statutory framework of the Sales and Use Tax Law and the statutes vesting the DTFA with authority to administer that statutory framework led the court to conclude that whether a taxpayer is a retailer for purposes of the Sales and Use Tax Law is a discretionary determination and not a ministerial task. View "Grosz v. Cal. Dept. of Tax & Fee Administration" on Justia Law

Shusha, Inc., dba La Cava (La Cava) appeals from the judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained without leave to amend the demurrer filed by Century-National Insurance Company (Century-National) to La Cava’s first amended complaint. La Cava sued Century-National for breach of an insurance contract and related claims after Century-National denied coverage for La Cava’s lost business income as a result of its suspension of restaurant operations in March 2020 due to the COVID-191 pandemic and associated government shutdowns.   On appeal, La Cava contended the trial court erred in concluding the alleged presence of the COVID-19 virus in its restaurant did not constitute “direct physical loss of or damage to” the restaurant necessary for coverage under the terms of the policy at issue. La Cava also argued Century-National acted in bad faith by summarily denying coverage without investigating La Cava’s claim.   The Second Appellate District reversed the trial court’s order and remanded for the trial court to vacate its order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend and to enter a new order overruling the demurrer. The court held that La Cava’s allegations that contamination by the COVID-19 virus physically altered its restaurant premises were sufficient to withstand demurrer. The court explained that Century-National’s denial of coverage just three weeks after La Cava tendered its claim and in the earliest days of our understanding of the novel COVID-19 virus, cannot be deemed as a matter of law to have been made in good faith with reasonable grounds. View "Shusha, Inc. v. Century-National Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Petitioners Geoff Cole and Admiral’s Experience, Inc. sought a writ of mandate to compel the trial court to calendar their timely motion for summary judgment for a hearing before the start of trial. The Court of Appeal notified the parties it was considering issuing a peremptory writ in the first instance (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc., 36 Cal.3d 171(1984)), and read and considered the informal response and request for judicial notice from real party in interest Matt Zeiner (Zeiner). Petitioners also field a reply brief, which Zeiner requested to strike. In 2018, a dispute arose between petitioners and Zeiner after a trailer petitioners rented from Zeiner was destroyed. In January 2019, Zeiner initiated the underlying lawsuit against petitioners seeking to recover for the loss of the trailer. The Court of Appeal granted the request for judicial notice, denied Zeiner’s request to strike the reply brief, and concluded that petitioners were entitled to peremptory writ relief. The Court published its decision to provide guidance on the deadline for filing a summary judgment motion that is served electronically. View "Cole v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Doe alleges that she was sexually assaulted by a massage therapist during a massage at a San Rafael Massage Envy retail location. She filed suit against the Arizona-based franchisor that licenses the “Massage Envy” brand name (MEF), and the independently owned San Rafael franchise where the assault allegedly occurred. MEF moved to compel arbitration on the basis of a “Terms of Use Agreement” presented to Doe when she checked in for a massage she had booked at the franchise location. The trial court concluded that there was no agreement to arbitrate between Doe and MEF.The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting MEF’s argument that the “Terms of Use Agreement,” which was available to Doe via a hyperlink on the electronic tablet she was given at the franchise, was a valid and enforceable “clickwrap” agreement of the sort that courts routinely enforce. Doe did not have reasonable notice that she was entering into any agreement with MEF, much less notice of the terms of the agreement. The transaction was nothing like the typical transactions in which clickwrap agreements are used; Doe went to a physical location, where she was already a member, and was handed a tablet to check in for a massage. View "Doe v. Massage Envy Franchising, LLC" on Justia Law

Monterey is an independent public agency responsible for analyzing Monterey County's water resources. Cal-Am is an investor-owned water utility providing water to over 100,000 residents on the Monterey Peninsula. Marina, a public agency, provides water for the City of Marina and neighboring Monterey Peninsula communities. In 1995 the State Water Resources Control Board ordered Cal-Am to stop drawing water from the Carmel River and develop an alternate water supply. In 2009 Marina, Monterey, and Cal-Am agreed to develop and construct a regional desalinization project to extract brackish water from beneath Monterey Bay, purify it, and deliver it to consumers. In 2010-2011, the parties entered into several agreements. The project was never built. The parties engaged in negotiation and mediation, ending in January 2012 without resolution.In September 2012, Cal-Am submitted a claim under the California Government Claims Act. Litigation followed. In 2019, the trial court entered summary adjudication against Monterey, finding that a negligence cause of action was barred by the two-year statute of limitations and against Cal-Am under the Government Claims Act. The court of appeal reversed. The trial court erred in finding that the “harm” accrued in 2010. There were triable issues of fact as to express waiver and as to the applicability of alternatives to the Claims Act. View "California-American Water Co. v. Marina Coast Water Districtw" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Bernell Beco filed suit against his former employer, defendant Fast Auto Loans, Inc. (Fast Auto) alleging 14 causes of action relating to the termination of his employment. Plaintiff alleged causes of action under with), including claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), numerous wage and hour violations under the Labor Code, wrongful termination, unfair competition, and additional tort claims. Fast Auto moved to compel arbitration, arguing that Beco had signed a valid arbitration agreement at the time he was hired. The trial court found the agreement unconscionable to the extent that severance would not cure the defects and declined to enforce it. After its review, the Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court that the agreement was unconscionable, and further rejected Fast Auto’s argument that the arbitrator, not the court, should have decided the issue of unconscionability. Additionally, because the agreement included numerous substantively unconscionable provisions, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision not to sever them. View "Beco v. Fast Auto Loans, Inc." on Justia Law