Decisions in Criminal, Family Law, Arbitration, anti-SLAPP and Securities Law Matters
Viterbi v. Wasserman, D055209, concerned a challenge to the trial court's grant of nonsuit as to the securities fraud claims in plaintiffs' suit against their former employee for securities fraud related claim, who worked as an analyst on plaintiffs' biotech investments. In affirming, the court held that, because privity of contract is necessary to maintain an action for rescission under sections 22504 and 22504.1, a purchaser of securities may not maintain such a claim against someone other than the direct seller, as rescission requires the contracting parties to be placed in the position they were in prior to contracting, and a non-seller, who did not receive any money from the purchaser, cannot return that money to the purchaser.
Villa Vicenza Homeowners Ass'n v. Nobel Court Dev., LLC., D054550,
concerned a challenge to the trial court's denial of defendant's motion
to compel arbitration, in plaintiffs' suit against a condominium
developer asserting construction defect claims. In affirming, the court
held that CC&R's are not an effective means of obtaining an
agreement to arbitrate a homeowners association's construction defect
claims against a developer as neither federal nor state law countenance
imposition of arbitration where no agreement to waive judicial remedies
exist. The court also held that there has been no showing the
association entered into a binding arbitration agreement as the recorded
CC&R's, standing alone, are not a contract between the developer
and the homeowners association, which only came into existence after the
CC&R's were recorded.
State of California v. Bank of Am., N.A., A126494,
concerned plaintiffs' qui tam action against Bank of America under the
California False Claims Act, (CFCA), claiming that BOA defrauded the
State by failing to pay over to the State amounts that plaintiffs
contend should escheat as abandoned or unclaimed property under the
California Unclaimed Property Law (UPL). In affirming the trial court's
judgment sustaining BOA"s demurrer to plaintiffs' first amended
complaint wihtout leave to amend, the court held that plaintiffs fail to
state a cause of action under either the UPL or the CFCA as, plaintiffs
have identified no property subject to escheat to the State, and
consequently cannot establish a claim under the UPL which they would be
entitled to pursue in the name of the State.
People v. Saibu, D054980,
concerned a challenge to the defendants' convictions and sentences for
committing a robbery of a video store, two attempted robberies of a
liquor store, and a murder in the liquor store during one of the
attempted robberies.
In affirming in part, the court held that trial court did not err in
admitting evidence of uncharged bank robberies as there were sufficient
unique characteristics to permit the introduction of evidence regarding
the uncharged offense for the purpose of establishing not only intent
with respect to the liquor store attempted robbery/shooting, but also
identifies the identities of the perpetrators of the charges crimes.
The court also affirmed where the trial court did not err in admitting
in evidence certain digitally enhanced photographs and expert testimony
describing how the images were enhanced, in admitting the recording of a
witness's conversation with police, and in failing to properly instruct
the jury with respect to the felony-murder special circumstance
allegation. The court held that there is sufficient evidence to support
defendant's attempted murder conviction as a natural and probable
consequence of the robbery, and held that there is no cumulative error.
However, the court directed the trial court to modify co-defendant's
abstract of judgment to reflect not only the presentence custody credits
that he earned but also the number of days that he has served in the
custody of the Director of the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation.
In re Marriage of Cantarella, G042957,
concerned a challenge to the family court's award of wife's request for
permanent spousal support, in marital dissolution proceedings. In
affirming, the court held that, contrary to the husband's argument that
the parties were married in 2000, the family court correctly determined
that the parties had been married for seventeen years as, the 1991
marriage is valid even though the marriage certificate was never
registered.
Grewal v. Jammu, A126239,
concerned a challenge to the trial court's denial of defendants'
anti-SLAPP motion, in plaintiff's suit for defamation against a local
publication and its editor and publisher. In affirming the judgment,
the court held that the plaintiff has met his burden under the
anti-SLAPP statute and there is nothing in the defendants' briefs that
raises any questions to the contrary, and that the trial court correctly
observed that, however efficacious the anti-SLAPP procedure may be in
the right case, it can be badly abused in the wrong one, resulting in
substantial cost and prejudicial delay.
Cadwell-Faso v. Faso, A126524,
concerned a challenge to the trial court's determination that because
seven days did not elapse
between the time the husband was presented with the final draft addenda
to the premarital agreement and the time he signed it, his execution was
deemed involuntary and the addendum was unenforceable, in marital
dissolution proceedings. In reversing the judgment, the court held that
section 1615(c)(2) simply does not pertain in the current situation
where the party against whom enforcement is sought was represented by
counsel from the outset of the transaction.
Related Links:
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.