In this case, attorney Ronald Slates sought to recover postjudgment attorney fees from his former clients, Alex Gorabi and Angelino Men’s Wear, Inc., under Code of Civil Procedure section 685.040 after prevailing in a priority dispute against another creditor, Sam Ghadrdan, who held a larger judgment against the same debtors. The trial court denied the fees, finding they were incurred litigating priority with a third party rather than enforcing the judgment against the debtors themselves, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court reasoned that section 685.040 allows recovery of fees only for efforts to collect from the judgment debtor, not disputes over asset priority among creditors, and that expanding liability to cover third-party interventions would exceed the statute’s purpose of encouraging debtor cooperation. The appeal proceeded only against the corporate debtor after Gorabi filed for bankruptcy.
In the case In re Marriage of Starr, the dispute centered on whether a house purchased by the husband in his name only during the marriage was community property or his separate property. The family law court determined that the house was community property after finding that the wife had quitclaimed her interest based on the husband's unfulfilled promise to add her to the title, which violated his fiduciary duties to her under Family Code section 721. The court ordered the husband to convey the property to both parties as tenants in common, allowed reimbursement for his separate property down payment, and denied his request for a refund of child support overpayments. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, upholding the valuation and the application of fiduciary duty rules in interspousal transactions.
The case involved nursing home operators seeking insurance coverage from the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) for two elder abuse lawsuits after their insurer, Legion Insurance, became insolvent. The court affirmed judgment for CIGA, ruling that the claims were not "covered claims" under the Insurance Code because they were not presented to CIGA by the June 30, 2005 deadline set in the Pennsylvania liquidation proceedings. The core reasoning was that the statutory requirement for timely filing in the domiciliary liquidation is mandatory and applies strictly to CIGA's obligations, regardless of later filings or leniency in other jurisdictions.
This case involved a juvenile dependency proceeding under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), where the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services sought to declare R.R. a dependent child based on allegations of her father Robert B.'s past and current drug use. The father appealed the juvenile court's jurisdiction and disposition order, challenging the admission of his medical records obtained via subpoena, which showed a recent hospitalization related to methamphetamine use, as well as claiming insufficient evidence and improper limits on visitation. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order, holding that the father had placed his drug use in issue by denying current abuse and asserting he had been drug-free for six years, thereby forfeiting his physician-patient privilege over the records. The court reasoned that this tender of the issue allowed admission of the evidence at the hearing, and other challenges regarding the subpoena process and evidence sufficiency did not warrant reversal.
The case was a proposed class action by a shareholder of JAMDAT Mobile, Inc., a Delaware corporation, alleging that the company's directors breached their fiduciary duties during its acquisition by Electronic Arts Inc. for $27 per share, based on claims of an unfair sales process, conflicts of interest involving the CEO's employment guarantees and direct negotiations, inadequate board oversight, and issues with the financial advisor's contingent fee arrangement. The trial court sustained the defendants' demurrer without leave to amend on grounds including shareholder ratification. The appellate court reversed the judgment as to the individual directors, holding that the complaint stated sufficient facts for a breach of fiduciary duty claim and that Delaware law under Gantler precluded the ratification defense because the merger vote did not qualify as classic ratification, while affirming the ruling as to JAMDAT itself.
The case involved survivors and heirs of victims from a single-vehicle rollover crash in Mexico of a Ford Explorer purchased in California, who sued Ford Motor Company, Cooper Tire, and others in San Diego Superior Court alleging strict and negligent product liability, negligent maintenance, and emotional distress from defective tires and vehicle design. After the case was transferred to Los Angeles and defendants conducted discovery, the trial court granted defendants' motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, finding Mexico the more convenient forum. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that defendants' delay in filing the motion—after using California discovery processes for eight months on matters unrelated to the motion—prejudiced plaintiffs and barred the dismissal, as forum non conveniens motions must be pursued promptly without availing of the forum's advantages.