Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, who owned a 1 percent interest in a limited liability company (LLC), filed a lawsuit seeking judicial dissolution of the LLC under Corporations Code section 17707.03. Defendants, other members of the LLC who together held 50 percent of the membership interests, filed a motion to avoid the dissolution by purchasing Plaintiff’s 1 percent interest. Then Plaintiff, together with other members owning 49 percent of the membership interests in the LLC—for a total of 50 percent—voted to dissolve the LLC.   The issue on appeal is whether the vote to dissolve the LLC extinguished the right Defendants otherwise would have had to purchase Plaintiff’s 1 percent interest and avoid dissolution of the LLC. The Second Appellate District concluded, in accordance with the plain language of section 17707.01, that the answer is “yes,” and the vote of 50 percent of the LLC membership interests to dissolve the LLC must be given effect. Consequently, the court held that the trial court erred when it issued an order appointing appraisers to determine the price Defendants must pay to purchase Plaintiff’s 1 percent membership interest. The court ordered the trial court to dismiss the buyout proceeding as moot and directed the parties to wind up the activities of the LLC. View "Friend of Camden v. Brandt" on Justia Law

Luis Munoz and LR Munoz Real Estate Holdings, LLC (together, Munoz) bought a hotel from a company owned and managed by Rajesh Patel and his son, Shivam. Before escrow closed, the parties negotiated a leaseback arrangement requiring Munoz to lease the hotel back to the Patels’ company after the sale. Escrow closed and the parties thereafter executed the previously-negotiated lease. However, Munoz contended the Patels secretly swapped out the agreed-upon lease for a lease substantially more beneficial to the Patels and worse for Munoz, and then tricked him into signing it. Munoz filed suit against the Patels, an alleged alter ego entity of the Patels called Inn Lending, LLC, and other defendants involved in the sale, asserting causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory fraud, and elder financial abuse, among other causes of action. Rajesh and Inn Lending demurred to the operative second amended complaint, the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. In a prior opinion, the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and determined, among other things, that Munoz alleged a viable fraud cause of action based on a theory of fraud in the execution. The California Supreme Court granted review and remanded the case back to the appellate court, ordering a rehearing of the parties arguments for fraud. After reconsideration, the Court of Appeal concluded operative complaint alleged facts sufficient to state a viable cause of action for fraud in the execution against Rajesh, but not against Inn Lending. Additionally, the Court concluded the complaint plead facts sufficient to state an elder financial abuse cause of action against both Rajesh and Inn Lending. The Court concluded Munoz failed to establish that the trial court erred in dismissing his breach of contract and bad faith causes of action. In light of these determinations, the appeals court reversed the trial court judgment and remand the matter with instructions that the trial court vacate its order sustaining the demurrer to the entire complaint, and enter a new order. View "Munoz v. Patel" on Justia Law

Turo, an Internet-based platform, allows vehicle owners to list, and customers to rent, specific passenger vehicles, processes reservations and payments and retains a percentage of the proceeds of each rental transaction. Turo provides a liability insurance policy through a third-party insurer. Turo competes with traditional on-airport and off-airport rental car companies and has used phrases like “rent” and “rental car” in its advertisements.The government sued Turo under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code 17200) for operating a rental car business at SFO without the required permit, engaging in prohibited curbside transactions at SFO, and using airport roadways and offering services on airport property without permission. Turo sought a declaratory judgment that it is not a rental car company and alleged that SFO had unlawfully demanded that Turo obtain an off-airport rental car company permit, and pay fees that SFO is authorized to charge only “rental car companies” under Government Code 50474.1(a).The court of appeal held that Turo is not a rental car company. That term is not defined in the Government Code but is defined in nearly identical language in three separate California statutes to mean a person or entity in the business of renting passenger vehicles to the public. A rental car company has control over the vehicles in its fleet in a way Turo does not View "Turo v. Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco" on Justia Law

The co-tenancy provision in the parties’ lease required a shopping center to have either: (1) three anchor tenants; or (2) 60 percent of the space leased, and, if it did not, Tenant-respondent JoAnn Stores, LLC was permitted to pay “Substitute Rent.” In 2018, Jo-Ann informed JJD it intended to start paying Substitute Rent effective July 1, 2018, because the co-tenancy provision was not met after two anchor tenants closed. Landlord-appellant JJD-HOV Elk Grove, LLC (JJD) responded that the co-tenancy provision was an unenforceable penalty under the holding in Grand Prospect Partners, L.P. v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc., 232 Cal.App.4th 1332 (2015). Jo-Ann contended Grand Prospect was distinguishable and the co-tenancy provision was enforceable. JJD and Jo-Ann filed competing complaints for declaratory relief and cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court found the co-tenancy provision was enforceable, and thus granted Jo- Ann’s motion, denied JJD’s, and entered judgment accordingly. JJD appealed. The Court of Appeal declined to follow the rule announced in Grand Prospect here, and instead held that this case was governed by the general rule that courts enforce contracts as written. The Court therefore agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that the co-tenancy provision at issue in this case was enforceable, and affirmed the judgment. View "JJD-HOV Elk Grove, LLC v. Jo-Ann Stores" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Rick Fowler sought a writ of mandate against defendant Golden Pacific Bancorp, Inc. (Bancorp), to enforce his statutory rights as a director and majority shareholder to inspect corporate books and records. Bancorp opposed the petition, arguing that the trial court should limit Fowler’s inspection rights because he was involved in ongoing litigation with Bancorp and could use the information to undermine Bancorp’s position in the lawsuit. The trial court granted Fowler’s writ petition. Bancorp appealed. After the Court of Appeal issued an oral argument waiver notice, Bancorp moved to dismiss the appeal as moot, citing that because Bancorp had been acquired by Social Finance, Inc., Fowler was no longer a Bancorp board member, and therefore it was impossible for the Court to grant effective relief. Ultimately, the Court of Appeal found Fowler was indeed no longer a member of Bancorp’s board of directors and therefore had no director’s inspection rights. Nevertheless, exercising discretion, the Court reached the merits of the case because it presented an issue of substantial and continuing public interest: whether a director’s “absolute” right of inspection under California Corporations Code section 1602 could be curtailed because the director and corporation were involved in litigation and there was a possibility the documents could be used to harm the corporation. “[T]he mere possibility that information could be used adversely to the corporation is not by itself sufficient to defeat a director’s inspection rights. Rather, any exception to the general rule favoring unfettered access must be limited to extreme cases, where enforcing an ‘absolute’ right of inspection would produce an absurd result, such as when the evidence establishes the director’s clear intent to use the information to breach fiduciary duties or otherwise commit a tort against the corporation.” The Court declined to reach the other question referenced in the parties’ briefs concerning Fowler’s inspection rights as a shareholder, because that issue was not resolved by the trial court and the record was insufficiently developed for a determination of whether it was moot. The case was remanded for the trial court to consider whether that issue was moot and, if not, to resolve any remaining disputes in the first instance. View "Fowler v. Golden Pacific Bancorp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed a summary judgment entered in favor of Defendant in her lawsuit for damages against Defendant based on his alter ego liability for a $157,370 judgment against a corporation. Plaintiff claimed that Magnolia Funding, Inc., the subject of a prior lawsuit that provided the original loan, and Magnolia Home Loans, Inc. “were the same company”; and that Defendant was “the sole owner, officer, and director of each.” Magnolia Funding closed when Magnolia Home Loans got up and running.   The Second Appellate district concluded, among other things, that (1) the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of the corporation; there are triable issues of fact concerning Defendant’s alter ego liability, and (2) Plaintiff’s civil action does not violate Defendant’s right to due process.   The court explained that under the alter ego doctrine, the corporate veil may be lifted to show the corporate form is fiction and determine who controls the corporate entity and who is liable for its debts. Courts look to the totality of circumstances to determine who actually owns or controls the corporate entity and who is using it as “a mere shell or conduit” for his or her own personal interests. When Magnolia Funding, Inc. dissolved, Magnolia Home Loans, Inc. received its remaining physical assets. At the end of the fiscal year 2009, Magnolia Home Loans, Inc. held cash and all that money was paid to Defendant. This is a triable issue of fact concerning Escamilla’s alter ego liability. View "Lopez v. Escamilla" on Justia Law

In 2009, Defendant borrowed $350,000 from a husband and wife (“Plaintiff” and “Co-Plaintiff”). The loan was documented by a promissory note which was secured by a deed of trust on real property belonging to Defendant. In 2009, Co-Defendant borrowed $150,000 from Co-Plaintiff. The loan was documented by a promissory note signed by Co-Defendant; the note was not secured by a deed of trust on real property.   In a court trial on Plaintiffs’ action against Defendants for breach of the obligation to repay the loans, the trial court voided the usurious interest rate on both notes and deemed the principal sum of the notes due at maturity. The Second Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s judgment in part and found Plaintiffs are entitled to prejudgment interest on the unpaid principal of the 2008 loan, but at the prejudgment interest rate set by article XV, section 1.   The court reasoned that even though Civil Code section 3289, subdivision (b) does not apply to the 2008 loan because it was secured by a deed of trust on real property, Plaintiffs were nonetheless entitled to prejudgment interest on the unpaid principal at the date of maturity at the rate of 7 percent which is the default rate of prejudgment interest provided in article XV, section 1 of the California Constitution, which applies except when a statute provides otherwise. View "Soleimany v. Narimanzadeh" on Justia Law

A judgment creditor seeking to seize funds in bank accounts held by the judgment debtor’s spouse served a notice of levy on the bank’s agent for service of process. The agent misread the form and rejected it. The agent informed the bank of its mistake and the bank then froze the funds, however, the spouse had all but drained the accounts. Plaintiff filed a motion for a court order imposing third-party liability on Defendant for its noncompliance with the notice of levy, which the trial court denied.   The Second Appellate District reversed the trial court’s ruling in the bank’s favor and held that the bank is liable for its agent’s negligence in misreading the service of process form. The court further held that the bank is liable for some of the funds withdrawn. The court reasoned that a third person’s “fail[ure] or refus[al]” to deliver property subject to a levy “without good cause” renders the third person “liable to the judgment creditor” for the amounts withdrawn and covered by the levy. Further, the principal’s failure to deliver property subject to a levy is excused when an agent’s mistake constitutes “good cause.” Here, because the agent, in this case, was negligent in misreading the standardized form it was served with, the agent for service of process—and hence its principal, the bank—had reason to know of the levy, such that the bank is liable to the judgment creditor for some of the withdrawn funds. View "Bergstrom v. Zions Bancorporation" on Justia Law

EBO filed suit after unsuccessfully seeking to lease a space in a building owned by the Taylor LLC, including derivative claims brought by EBO on behalf of Taylor, alleging that the denial of the lease caused Taylor to suffer economic injury. The defendants argued that EBO lacked standing under Corporations Code section 17709.02 to pursue them because during the litigation it relinquished its interest in and was no longer a member of the Taylor LLC. The court determined that it nonetheless had statutory discretion to allow EBO to maintain the derivative claims.The court of appeal vacated. Section 17709.02 requires a party to maintain continuous membership in a limited liability company to represent it derivatively, just as section 800 requires a party to maintain continuous ownership in a corporation to represent it derivatively. The statutory discretion conferred on trial courts under section 17709.02(a)(1), to permit “[a]ny member [of an LLC] who does not meet these requirements” to maintain a derivative suit does not permit courts to excuse a former member from the continuous membership requirement. While equitable considerations may warrant exceptions to the continuous membership requirement, no such considerations were presented here. View "Sirott v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County" on Justia Law

Grove, an employee of Juul, a Delaware corporation that was headquartered in San Francisco, received options to acquire company stock. Grove stopped working for Juul in 2017, then exercised those options. In 2019, Grove sought to inspect the company’s books and records under California Corporations Code section 1601 to determine the value of his stock and to investigate potential breaches of fiduciary duty. Juul sought declaratory and injunctive relief in Delaware. Grove filed a shareholder class action and derivative complaint in California. Juul cited a forum selection clause, requiring that derivative and class claims proceed in Delaware. Grove filed an amended complaint, alleging only violations of section 1601. The California court stayed Grove's action, reasoning that the Agreement Grove signed states that Delaware courts have exclusive jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. The Court of Chancery of Delaware then granted Juul judgment on the pleadings; Grove did not waive inspection rights under California law but “[s]tockholder inspection rights are a core matter of internal corporate affairs,” so Grove’s rights as a stockholder are governed by Delaware law; Grove may litigate his inspection rights only in a Delaware court.The California court of appeal affirmed the stay order. It was reasonable to enforce the forum selection clause as to the class and derivative claims. Grove’s claim to inspect the books and records has already been adjudicated in the Delaware court, whose decision is entitled to full faith and credit. View "Grove v. Juul Labs, Inc." on Justia Law