News

Case Summaries

Injury & Tort Law

[11/19] McDonald v. Sun Oil Co.
In a suit arising out of the sale of a property containing a disused mercury mine, alleging negligence, contribution, breach of contract and fraud as a result of an alleged oral warranty that certain rock at the mine was free of mercury, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the state statute of repose did not render the negligence claim time-barred, because provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act amending state statute of limitations rules also applied to statutes of repose; 2) the contribution claim could not be brought without remedial action having been initiated by a state environmental agency; 3) the parol evidence rule was properly applied to find that the parties had reduced their entire agreement to writing and that no binding oral warranty existed; and 4) plaintiffs did not produce evidence of the alleged falsity of statements made by defendant.

[11/19] Bregin v. Liquidebt Sys., Inc
In a suit alleging retaliatory discharge and tortious interference with employment, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff did not identify any illegal acts which he was asked to commit, for which a retaliation claim could be brought; 2) state law did not provide a whistleblower exception to the employment-at-will doctrine; and 3) plaintiff did not make out a claim for tortious interference.

[11/17] Goldstein v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles
In a claim alleging that defendants wrongfully obtained plaintiff's conviction for murder based on their pattern and practice of misusing the testimony of jailhouse informants, grant of plaintiff's Penal Code section 924.2 petition seeking access to grand jury materials is reversed where California courts do not have a broad inherent power to order disclosure of grand jury materials to private litigants.

More...

Property Law & Real Estate

[11/19] McDonald v. Sun Oil Co.
In a suit arising out of the sale of a property containing a disused mercury mine, alleging negligence, contribution, breach of contract and fraud as a result of an alleged oral warranty that certain rock at the mine was free of mercury, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the state statute of repose did not render the negligence claim time-barred, because provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act amending state statute of limitations rules also applied to statutes of repose; 2) the contribution claim could not be brought without remedial action having been initiated by a state environmental agency; 3) the parol evidence rule was properly applied to find that the parties had reduced their entire agreement to writing and that no binding oral warranty existed; and 4) plaintiffs did not produce evidence of the alleged falsity of statements made by defendant.

[11/19] Vineberg v. Bissonnette
In a property matter concerning the viability of a laches defense asserted by the current possessor of a work of art in effort to fend of an action for replevin, summary judgment in favor of original owner's successors in interest is affirmed where: 1) the district court acted well within the realm of its discretion in refusing the defendant's tardy request to reopen discovery; and 2) the court had an appropriate rationale for granting the plaintiffs' motion for brevis disposition.

[11/17] Kachlon v. Markowitz
In claims for wrongful foreclosure under a deed of trust and breach of a home improvement contract, judgment is reversed in part where: 1) Civil Code section 2924 deems the statutorily required mailing, publication, and delivery of notices in nonjudicial foreclosure, and the performance of statutory nonjudicial foreclosure procedures, to be privileged communications under the qualified, common-interest privilege of Civil Code section 47, subdivision (c)(1); 2) foreclosure company's recording of the notice of default on instruction by the home sellers was privileged; and 3) evidence failed to demonstrate foreclosure company acted with malice thus foreclosure company was immune from homebuyers' slander of title and negligence claims. Judgment is affirmed in part where: 1) unlike foreclosure company, home sellers were not entitled to privilege protection; and 2) the trial court properly found that homebuyers were prevailing parties entitled to attorney fees against home sellers and foreclosure company on equitable claims arising out of the promissory note and deed of trust.

More...