In Eisenberg Village of the Los Angeles Jewish Home for the Aging v. Suffolk Construction, Inc., the Second Appellate District held that a claim to disgorge payment to an unlicensed building contractor under Business and Professions Code section 7031 has to be brought within one year of the completion or cessation of the performance of the act or contract at issue. It is always important to verify the license of a contractor performing work to avoid legal problems but it is imperative to do so at the time of payment, particularly when the work is completed.
In Thurson v. Fairfield Collectibles of Georgia, LLC (8/26/20), the Fourth Appellate District considered whether a Georgia based website that made sales to California was subject to California personal jurisdiction, and therefore subject to suit under the Unruh Civil Rights Act because its website was not fully accessible to the blind and visually impaired. Based on the website generating 8-10% of its sales in California, the Fourth Appellate District reversed the trial court, and held that the subject website is the equivalent of a physical store in California, finding that it constituted purposeful availment. Based on this ruling, any business that sells goods to Californians by a website needs to consider whether its conduct, and its website itself complies with California law.
The Federal Reserve System conducts the United States monetary policy, inter alia. It is governed by its Board of Governors which has 5 members. For a nation of over 329,387,000 people [https://www.census.gov/popclock/], it is rather incredible that 5 people control monetary policy, particularly since those 5 people have nearly uniform experience either as economists, or white shoe lawyers. A better practice would be to restructure the Board of Governors to mandate inclusion of a member from each state appointed in staggered terms of 5 years. This would eliminate the myopic inbred nature of the Board of Governors, and ideally the Federal Reserve’s role as the savior of the capital markets.
In Moofly Productions, LLC v. Favila (2020, Second Appellate District case # BC516308), the Court of Appeal held that there is no right to a jury trial in an action for fraudulent transfer, and that a state court can rely on discovery misconduct in a related federal action when imposing terminating sanctions.
On 5/14/20, the Financial Times berates Sanofi because it stated that the U.S. would get the vaccine first after paying $1 billion dollars for it. Meanwhile, France announces a rescue package of $18 billion to save its tourism industry. France, the land of well-placed priorities.
In Longview International, Inc. v. Stirling, the Sixth Appellate District denied a judgment debtor’s motion to expunge a judgment lien once she discovered that the judgment creditor was suspended at the time the abstract of judgment was recorded. Thereafter, the corporation was revived, e.g., had its corporate powers reinstated. The Court held that the abstract of judgment was a procedural act that was retroactively validated once the suspended corporation’s powers were reinstated.
In Colombo v. Kinkle, Rodiger & Spriggs, the Fourth Appellate District held that res judicata barred Colombo, a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order under Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7 from filing successive prefiling requests institute new litigation, making it clear that he had one bite at the apple.
In In re Marriage of Wallace Loy Tim and Amy Ju Wong, the Fourth Appellate District reiterated that a postjudgment order is only appealable if it passdx three additional tests: (1) the issue is different from the issues decided in the judgment; (2) the order affects the judgment or relates to its enforcement; and (3) the order is not “preliminary to a later judgment.” Here, the respondent appealed orders pertaining to discovery referee reports and recommendations regarding discovery and related issues. The court noted that the appeal of postjudgment discovery orders is difficult, collecting cases that considered that issue, but denied the appeal of the orders at issue because it found that those discovery orders would be appealable from the determination of the request for order.
In Correia v. NB Baker Electric, Inc., the Fourth Appellate District held that courts do not have the authority to order a Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) representative action into arbitration, and a provision in a predispute arbitration agreement that requires that is unenforceable because the state is the real party in interest in a PAGA claim, and must have consented to that agreement to waive its rights.
In Bridgepoint Construction Services, Inc. v. Newton et al. (Second Appellate District, Div. 6, 9/4/18), Robert G. Klein filed an action on behalf of Bridgepoint and Salter, one of Bridgepoint’s two shareholders in Santa Barbara County. Thereafter, the defendant cross-complained against Bridgepoint, Salter, and Ram, Salter’s business associate. In December, 2014, Robert G. Klein represented all 3 of these parties. In January, 2017, Newton, a Defendant, and the other shareholder in Bridgepoint successfully moved to disqualify Robert G. Klein from representing Salter, and Bridgepoint because Bridgepoint and Salter have conflict over indemnity claims. Undeterred, in February, 2017, Robert G. Klein filed a cross-complaint against Newton, et al. for Ram. In Arizona, Robert G. Klein continued to represent Salter, and Bridgepoint in a federal action. Thereafter, Bridgepoint successfully moved to disqualify Robert G. Klein from representing Ram. The trial court did so because Robert G. Klein represents Bridgepoint in an Arizona action while in the California action Bridgepoint and Ram both seek to recover damages from the same pool of money. The court of appeal agreed with the trial court, and found that Robert G. Klein’s representation of Bridgepoint, and Ram simultaneously, albeit in different actions, required automatic disqualification. Further, the representation of Ram against Bridgepoint, a former client in the California action, required disqualification where there was a substantial relationship between the subject matter, and the attorney obtains confidential information. Here, Robert G. Klein obtained confidential information when he had access to Bridgepoint’s expert in review of its financial records. In the Court of Appeal, Robert G. Klein unsuccessfully argued that there is no conflict of interest because his clients and former clients all sue the same people. The Court of Appeal found that unpersuasive because of Robert G. Klein’s clients sought recovery from the same finite pool of money. Robert G. Klein argued that disqualification deprived Ram of the counsel of his choosing but the Court of Appeal noted that occurs in nearly every instance of disqualification. Next, Robert G. Klein argued that the conflict of interest was hypothetical but the Court of Appeal disagreed given that all of the parties in question sought relief from the same funds. Robert G. Klein also unpersuasively asserted that Bridgepoint’s cross-complaint was a sham which the Court of Appeal declined to do on appeal.