De Facto corporation dissolution. Real estate corporation subchapters.
Shareholder suit. The dispute involved whether plaintiff was still a director of Defendant Corporation, still a shareholder of Defendant Corporation, and whether the dissolution or merger of Defendant Corporation into another Corporation was null and void.
Plaintiff, the brother of the Defendant, filed a complaint against the defendant alleging fraud and deceit, constructive fraud, violation of the Welfare and Institution Code (Elder Financial Abuse) and for cancellation of the Deed. The defendant obtained a document purporting to be a Quit Claim Deed from her father by having her father mark an AX@ on the document in an attempt to have the real property transferred to her exclusively at a time when her father was gravely ill in the hospital.
A corporation brought an action alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and violation of Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200, arising from defendant corporation's marketing of a product alleged to be based on a process developed by plaintiff. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendant on all three causes of action on the ground that they were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. The Court of Appeal affirmed.
In a case involving the lease of commercial property to operate a grocery store, a separate meat counter and a check cashing business, the court organized, simplified and held a complicated jury trial that resulted in extensive pre- and post-trial motions that included a judgment for punitive damages.
In a consolidated action involving two public works projects, a subcontractor sued the general contractor and the public entities over failure to pay. The general contractor cross-complained over failure to complete the contract, failure to pay prevailing wages to its workers and fraud. One of the members of the subcontractor filed bankruptcy after the case was filed. The court issued a partial directed verdict on the issue of standing and the remainder of the case settled.
An energy company filed five separate actions including writs of mandamus and complaints for a refund of taxes paid to a city claiming that the city’s charges were a special tax, violated the California Constitution, violated the Commerce Clause and breached a contract with the city. The court made dispositive rulings that narrowed the case and streamlined the resolution of the case.
Plaintiff attorney sued his bank for negligence following his deposit of a large check into his trust account that ultimately turned out to be counterfeit. There were issues relating to professional responsibility on the part of both the attorney and the bank that were resolved by the court. Ultimately the jury issued an award that the court adjusted and the case was settled on appeal.