Archive for the ‘Developments’ Category

Pulte Homes Corporation v. Williams Mechanical, Inc. – Dissolution of Corporation Not Possible When Corporation is Suspended by Franchise Tax Board (2016-9-16)

The recent decision in Pulte Homes Corporation v. Williams Mechanical, Inc. (Aug. 9, 2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 267 was arose from a claim by Pulte for “$69,576 based on Williams’s allegedly negligent performance of a subcontract for the installation of plumbing in two residential construction projects.” The advance sheets contained the entire opinion.  When the decision […]






Taylor Anderson LLP v. U.S. Bank – Chargeback of Cashier’s Check Approved by Court (2016-9-5)

The law of payment systems has interested this writer for many years.  It is an area of law filled with arcane and technical rules, most of which are never encountered in day-to-day transactions. Think of it.  Millions of checks are processed each day, yet it is a rare occurrence when a legal issue arises involving […]






Rancho Mirage Country Club v. Hazelbaker – Another Reason Not to Fight Your Homeowners Association (2016-8-16)

There’s an old saying – “You can’t fight city hall.”  In the case of a homeowners association, the saying should be, “You can’t afford to fight a homeowners association.”  Because the deck is stacked against the homeowner. In the recent case of Rancho Mirage Country Club Homeowners Ass’n v. Thomas B. Hazelbaker (Aug. 8, 2016) […]






Janice H. v. 696 North Robertson, LLC – Premises Liability is Never a Clear Question in California (2016-7-21)

The recent decision in Janice H. v. 696 North Robertson, LLC (July 14, 2016) ___ Cal.App.4th ___ addressed the always difficult question of premises liability.  More specifically, When is the operator of real property liable for an injury to a guest in a unisex bathroom?  The court’s answer – a resounding, It depends. The facts […]






Taylor v. NU Digital Marketing, Inc. – Remedy of Unlawful Detainer Notwithstanding Contract for Sale (2016-6-29)

The remedy of unlawful detainer is available in three situations under California law, most commonly when a tenant holds over after termination of the lease, or when the tenant continues to occupy the property after breach of the lease. Less commonly, unlawful detainer is available to an owner “against an employee, agent, or licensee whose […]






Ferguson v. Yaspan – Statute of Limitations Not Applicable to Defense Based on Rescission (2016-4-15)

In a lawsuit based on a contract, one party can seek relief based on the theory of rescission.  Rescission can be considered an equitable judicial remedy.  Under California Civil Code section 1689, rescission supports “extinction” of the obligation. Rescission can be pled as a basis for affirmative relief, or it can asserted as defense to […]






Majd v. Bank of America – Violation of Dual Tracking Statute Supports Claim for Wrongful Foreclosure (2016-4-11)

California law now prohibits the practice of “dual tracking,” whereby a lender simultaneously pursues a default while also engaging in loan modification negotiations with the borrower.  The question concerns the remedy available when there is a violation of the dual tracking law. The court in Kazem Majd v. Bank of America, N.A. (Jan. 14, 2016) […]






In re Perl – 9th Circuit Changes Rules Relating to Bankruptcy Stay and California Eviction Law (2016-1-20)

The law of evictions – titled as “unlawful detainer” in California – is a technical area. The law has statutory roots as far back as the Forcible Entry Act of 1381, which prohibited the use of self-help to retake possession of real property. That remains an important concept in an action based on the unlawful […]






The ABCs of Future Public Payments Law – Prof. Mark Burge (2016-1-8)

Strange how an idea that was once old can become new again.  Roscoe Pound, Dean of the Harvard Law School, was a prolific legal writer in the 1920s and 1930s.  From my perspective, his best work concerned the development of the American legal system from 1850 through 1900, as America reached the end of its […]






ChinaCast Education Corporation – Fraud of Officer Imputed to Corporation (2015-12-2)

Here is a recent decision that is not a surprise under a traditional agent-principal analysis.  Even so, it has to sting, because the corporation loses twice – first, when it was defrauded by the former president, and second when the corporation was sued by shareholders for the diminished value of their securities. The fact pattern […]