Eileen C. Moore

BAHARIAN-MEHR v. Smith

California Court of Appeal · 2010-10-15 · cited 55×

This case involves a dispute among partners in an adult entertainment business where the plaintiff sued his partners and the corporation for accounting irregularities, mismanagement, and breach of fiduciary duties. The defendant filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint, arguing it arose from protected activity, but both the trial court and the appellate court denied the motion. The court reasoned that the claims stemmed from a business dispute rather than any protected speech or petitioning activity, with any mention of such activity being incidental. The court also upheld the award of attorney fees against the defendant for filing a frivolous motion.

business & regulatoryprocedure

People v. Valdez

California Court of Appeal · 2010-10-12 · cited 23×

The case involved defendant Victor Valdez, who was charged with fleeing the scene of an injury accident under Vehicle Code section 20001 after striking a pedestrian with a car, along with a Penal Code section 12022.7 great bodily injury enhancement. The jury convicted Valdez and found the enhancement true, leading to a sentence that included three years for the enhancement. The court held that the enhancement did not apply because the injuries occurred in the accident itself, not during the commission of the felony of fleeing the scene. The reasoning centered on the fact that section 20001 criminalizes the act of leaving the accident without stopping or rendering aid, rather than the causing of the accident, and the enhancement statute requires personal infliction of great bodily injury in the course of committing or attempting the felony.

criminal law

Holmes v. Summer

California Court of Appeal · 2010-10-06 · cited 20×

The case involved buyers who agreed to purchase a residential property for $749,000 but later learned it was encumbered by over $1.1 million in deeds of trust, preventing the seller from conveying clear title without lender concessions or a large cash deposit by the seller. The buyers sued the seller's real estate brokers for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and deceit, alleging the brokers knew of the overencumbrance but failed to disclose it despite listing the property and handling the transaction. The trial court sustained the brokers' demurrer without leave to amend, finding no duty of disclosure. The appellate court reversed, holding that the brokers owed a duty to disclose the substantial risk that clear title could not be conveyed, based on public policy concerns about the reliability of real estate transactions and the potential harm to buyers and the market from undisclosed overencumbered properties.

propertytorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

Roden v. AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORP.

California Court of Appeal · 2010-07-08 · cited 31×

Thrifty Payless, Inc. v. MARINERS MILE GATEWAY, LLC.

California Court of Appeal · 2010-06-21 · cited 48×

G.R. v. Intelligator

California Court of Appeal · 2010-06-10 · cited 39×

Affiliations

Decision record

Eileen C. Moore

Affiliations

Decision record