Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

This case involves a dispute between plaintiffs Michelle Beverage and Joseph Mejia, and defendant Apple, Inc. The plaintiffs filed a class action complaint alleging that Apple's restrictive contractual terms and coercive conduct towards software developers on its App Store constituted unlawful and unfair practices that violated the Cartwright Act and the Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The plaintiffs specifically focused on Apple's treatment of one developer, Epic Games, Inc., and its gaming application, Fortnite. The trial court sustained a demurrer brought by Apple without leave to amend, applying the Colgate doctrine and the holding of Chavez v. Whirlpool Corporation. The court determined that the plaintiffs did not and could not state causes of action under either legal regime as a matter of law.The trial court's decision was based on the application of the Colgate doctrine and the holding of Chavez v. Whirlpool Corporation. The court found that the plaintiffs did not and could not state causes of action under either the Cartwright Act or the UCL as a matter of law. The plaintiffs appealed only one aspect of the trial court's ruling, arguing that the court erred by relying on Chavez to sustain the demurrer to their UCL cause of action alleging unfair practices by Apple towards Epic Games.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Sixth Appellate District affirmed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court disagreed with the plaintiffs' argument that Chavez was inconsistent with the California Supreme Court’s decision in Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Company. The court found that the trial court correctly relied on Chavez to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend. The court held that the plaintiffs did not state a claim as a matter of law under the "unfair" prong of the UCL, considering the trial court's ruling that Apple's practices constituted permissible unilateral conduct. View "Beverage v. Apple, Inc." on Justia Law

Dr. Ryan Kime, an emergency medicine physician, applied for privileges in the emergency department of two hospitals owned by Dignity Health, Inc. (Dignity) while he was under disciplinary proceedings by the Medical Board of California. The proceedings resulted in a public reprimand. Dignity stopped processing Kime’s application a few days after the reprimand took effect. Kime sued Dignity for injunctive relief and damages, alleging that Dignity violated his common law and statutory rights by denying his application without offering him a hearing. Dignity moved for summary judgment, arguing that it had a policy not to consider applicants with disciplinary histories for emergency department privileges, and that no hearing is required when privileges are denied due to such a policy. The trial court granted Dignity’s motion for summary judgment and denied Kime’s motion for summary adjudication.The Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District affirmed the trial court's decision. The court found that Dignity's policy of not considering applicants with disciplinary histories for emergency department privileges was a quasi-legislative decision, which did not require a hearing under the common law right to fair procedure. The court also found that Dignity's decision to deny Kime's application did not require a hearing under the statutory right set forth in the Business and Professions Code, as the decision was not made by a peer review body and did not require the filing of a report under section 805 of the Code. The court concluded that Kime had no right to a hearing under either the common law or statutory law. View "Kime v. Dignity Health, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves Dr. R. Michael Williams, a board-certified oncologist, who had privileges at Doctor’s Medical Center of Modesto (DMCM) since 2003. Williams alleged that around 2018, his professional relationship with DMCM and other respondents deteriorated. He claimed that respondents treated him with hostility and unprofessionalism, and began investigating him. Williams filed two lawsuits against respondents based on their treatment of him. The first lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed by Williams after respondents filed anti-SLAPP motions. The second lawsuit, which is the subject of this appeal, was dismissed by the trial court after granting respondents' anti-SLAPP motions. Williams appealed both the granting of the anti-SLAPP motions and the award of attorney fees to respondents.The Superior Court of Stanislaus County had granted two separate anti-SLAPP motions filed by the respondents and awarded them attorney fees. Williams appealed these decisions, arguing that the trial court erred in finding that his claims arose from protected activity and that he failed to establish a probability of prevailing on his claims. He also contended that the award of attorney fees must be reversed because he had established that the court erred in granting the anti-SLAPP motions.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Fifth Appellate District reversed both the granting of the anti-SLAPP motions and the award of attorney fees. The court found that the trial court had erroneously relied on issue preclusion to find that respondents had met their burden under the first SLAPP question. The court concluded that the respondents did not meet their burden of showing that any cause of action or claim in the FAC arose from SLAPP protected activity. Therefore, the SLAPP order must be reversed, and it was unnecessary for the court to address whether Williams met his burden under the second step. View "Williams v. Doctors Medical Center of Modesto" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between Anthony Sam and Renee Kwan, who formed a limited liability company (LLC) and purchased a parking lot. Sam alleged that Kwan, without his knowledge, sold the lot for a significant profit, fabricated documents, and pocketed the money without giving him anything. Sam sued Kwan, her entities, the company providing title and escrow services for the sale, and the parking lot buyer. The trial court ruled against Sam, denying him any remedy.The trial court's decisions were largely unfavorable for Sam. It denied First American's motion for summary judgment but granted the Board's motion for summary judgment. The court also granted judgment on the pleadings to various defendants, including Fidelity, First American, Kwan, Vibrant, Asset, 600 LLC, and Holdings. The court sustained Fidelity's demurrer in part with leave to amend and in part without leave to amend. Sam appealed these decisions.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Eight affirmed some of the trial court's rulings but reversed others. The appellate court reversed the denial of Sam's leave to amend his claims on behalf of 2013 LLC and remanded to permit Sam to bring these claims on behalf of the member entities. The court also reversed the remainder of the grants of judgment on the pleadings, except as to the breach of contract claims based on the operating agreements of 600 LLC and Holdings against 600 LLC and Holdings. The court affirmed the ruling that the breach of contract claims based on the operating agreements of 600 LLC and Holdings against 600 LLC and Holdings cannot be amended to state viable claims. The court reversed the sustaining of Fidelity's demurrer as to the civil conspiracy cause of action. Finally, the court reversed the grant of the Board's summary judgment motion. View "Sam v. Kwan" on Justia Law

Saide Lugo, a former employee of Pixior, LLC, filed a lawsuit against the company and some of its employees for malicious prosecution. Lugo alleged that Pixior falsely reported her to the police, leading to a criminal prosecution against her, which she ultimately defeated. The parties disagreed on the circumstances leading to the police report. Pixior claimed that Lugo, a disgruntled employee, deleted valuable computer files upon her resignation. Lugo, on the other hand, argued that Pixior fabricated charges against her to tarnish her reputation as she was about to assist Pixior's adversary in an impending dispute. Both parties agreed that Pixior reported Lugo to the police, leading to her arrest and subsequent charges, which were eventually dismissed after it was discovered that a Pixior employee had lied under oath.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County initially reviewed the case. Pixior filed a special motion to strike in response to Lugo's lawsuit, which the trial court denied. The court found that Pixior's motion satisfied the first step of anti-SLAPP analysis, determining that Lugo's lawsuit concerned protected activity. However, the court ruled against Pixior on the second step, which required Lugo to demonstrate a probability of success.The case was then reviewed by the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District. The appellate court disagreed with the lower court's decision on the second step of the anti-SLAPP analysis. The court found that Lugo failed to defeat Pixior's defense that the police conducted an independent investigation before the district attorney filed charges. The court ruled that this independent investigation was a superseding cause that insulated Pixior from liability. Therefore, the court reversed the lower court's decision, ruling in favor of Pixior and awarding costs to the appellants. View "Lugo v. Pixior, LLC, et al." on Justia Law

Apex Solutions, Inc., a cannabis business, filed a lawsuit against Falls Lake Insurance Management Company, Inc., after the insurance company refused to pay the full amount of a claim Apex filed following a burglary at its facility. The burglars stole a large portion of Apex's cannabis inventory from two separate vaults. Apex claimed that the thefts constituted two separate occurrences, each subject to a $600,000 per occurrence limit under its insurance policy. Falls Lake, however, contended that the thefts constituted a single occurrence, subject to a single $600,000 limit.The Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, granted summary judgment in favor of Falls Lake, ruling that a single per occurrence limit applied. The court also rejected Apex's claim for additional payments under its business interruption coverage.On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, affirmed the lower court's ruling on the per occurrence limit, agreeing that the thefts constituted a single occurrence. However, the appellate court found that Apex had raised a triable issue of fact regarding the calculation of its lost business income. The court therefore reversed the judgment in part and remanded the case for further proceedings on that issue. View "Apex Solutions v. Falls Lake Insurance Management Co., Inc." on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff, Joseph Gazal, donated over $1 million to purchase a car and a home for a destitute family. He was inspired to make this donation after hearing a homily delivered by defendant Carlos Echeverry, a deacon at his church. Gazal brought a lawsuit against Echeverry and his wife, Jessica Echeverry, as well as SOFESA, Inc., a nonprofit founded and led by Jessica Echeverry. Gazal claimed he was deceived into believing the car and house would be purchased for and titled to the destitute family, when in fact they were bought and titled to SOFESA.The defendants filed a special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute, asserting that the homily and following conversations were protected speech. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the complaint did not rest on protected speech, but rather on private conduct and speech not directed at a wide public audience. Additionally, the court found that the causes of action arose from further communications that took place weeks after the homily.On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Eight affirmed the trial court's decision. The court held that while the homily could be considered protected speech, the plaintiff's claims did not arise from the homily but rather from the alleged misconduct that occurred after its delivery. The court also found that the private discussions following the homily did not qualify for anti-SLAPP protection as they did not contribute to a public conversation on the issue of homelessness. Furthermore, the court denied a motion for sanctions filed by the plaintiff. View "Gazal v. Echeverry" on Justia Law

In this case, the Court of Appeal of the State of California was asked to determine a dispute over an insurance claim between Apex Solutions, Inc. (Apex), a cannabis business, and Falls Lake National Insurance Company (Falls Lake). In June 2020, burglars broke into Apex's facility and stole the contents of two vaults containing cannabis inventory, leading to property and business income losses. Apex claimed over $2.5 million for the loss from Falls Lake. The disagreement between the parties centered on whether the theft constituted one or two occurrences under the insurance policy, which would determine the payout limit.The court held that the theft was a single occurrence, based on the evidence that it was a coordinated raid. However, it also concluded that there was a disputed issue concerning the proper calculation of Apex’s claim of lost business income. This issue was remanded for further proceedings in the lower court.In reaching its decision, the court applied existing principles of contractual and insurance law, with a focus on the interpretation of the term "occurrence" in the insurance policy. The court emphasized the importance of considering the cause of the loss and the coordination of the activities leading to the loss in determining whether it was a single occurrence.In conclusion, the court partially reversed the judgment, affirming the single occurrence ruling but remanding the case for further proceedings on the lost business income claim. View "Apex Solutions, Inc. v. Falls Lake Ins. Management Co., Inc." on Justia Law

In this case, the People of the State of California filed a lawsuit against Holiday Liquor (owned by Abdul Jamal Sheriff and operated under Freetown Holdings Company) for public nuisance. The People claimed that the store had become a hub for illegal drug transactions, with customers and dealers using the store as a meeting point. The store was accused of tolerating loitering and drug dealing, lacking security, operating until 2 a.m., and selling alcohol in cheap single-serving containers.The trial court granted summary judgment for the People, ordering the store to hire guards, stop selling single-serving containers of alcohol, and take other measures to address the issue. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District affirmed the trial court's decision.The court held that Holiday Liquor had indeed facilitated a public nuisance by failing to take reasonable measures to prevent the sale of illegal drugs on its property. The court ruled that the proprietor was aware of the illegal activities as he had been informed multiple times by the police. Despite this knowledge, he failed to implement recommended measures to mitigate the issue, such as hiring security guards, limiting operating hours, and ceasing the sale of single-serving alcohol containers. The ruling was based on the violation of sections 11570 et seq. of the Health and Safety Code (the drug house law), sections 3479 et seq. of the Civil Code (the public nuisance law), and sections 17200 et seq. of the Business and Professions Code (the unfair competition law). View "P. v. Freetown Holdings Co." on Justia Law

In 2014, plaintiffs Medallion Film LLC and Pelican Point Capital Partners entered into a consulting fee agreement with Clarius Capital Group, managed by William Sadleir. The agreement stipulated that Medallion Film and Pelican Point would assist Clarius in obtaining funding for film projects, and Clarius would pay them a portion of any funding obtained. However, it is alleged that Sadleir dissolved Clarius and its affiliate and subsidiary entities in 2015 and formed a new set of corporate entities under the name Aviron with the assistance of the law firm Loeb & Loeb.The plaintiffs allege that Sadleir controlled both the Clarius and Aviron entities and transferred Clarius’s assets to the Aviron entities. Aviron later obtained a loan for its film projects from BlackRock, which Medallion Film and Pelican Point claim they were entitled to a portion of under their agreement with Clarius. However, Sadleir denied any affiliation between Aviron and Clarius and said he was solely an employee of Aviron.The plaintiffs sued Loeb & Loeb in December 2021, alleging causes of action for fraudulent misrepresentation, deceit by concealment, negligent misrepresentation, aiding and abetting fraud, and violating California Business and Professions Code section 17200. Loeb & Loeb filed a special motion to strike the first amended complaint as a strategic lawsuit against public participation under section 425.16. The trial court granted the special motion to strike.However, the Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Eight vacated the judgment, reversed the order granting the special motion to strike, and remanded with directions to enter a new order denying the motion. View "Medallion Film LLC v. Loeb & Loeb LLP" on Justia Law