Jump to Navigation

Recent Cases & News

Case Summaries

Commercial Law

[02/16] Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. v. American Asphalt South, Inc.
In a government contracts dispute alleging the tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, the Court of Appeals judgment overturning the trial court's judgment sustaining defendants demurrer, is reversed where plaintiffs' allegations -- that they had submitted the second lowest bids on several contracts awarded to defendant, and that their bids would have been accepted but for defendant's wrongful conduct during the bidding process -- are insufficient because: 1) public works contracts are a unique species of commercial dealings; 2) in the contracts at issue here, the public entities retained broad discretion to reject all bids; 3) the bids were sealed, and there were no postsubmission negotiations; 4) in awarding the contracts, the public entities could give no preference to any bidder based on past dealings, and were required to accept the lowest responsible bid; and 5) in these highly regulated circumstances, plaintiffs had 'at most a hope for an economic relationship and a desire for future benefit.' Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 331.

[12/22] Integrated Dynamic Solutions, Inc. v. VitaVet Labs, Inc.
In a contracts action, arising from a dispute between plaintiff computer software consultant and defendant VitaVet over an agreement to build custom software for defendant's e-commerce needs, the trial court's grant of a preliminary injunction ordering plaintiff to deliver the source code and technical specifications to defendant is affirmed where the facts establish this as an 'extreme case' where a preliminary injunction altering the status quo is available under City of Corona v. AMG Outdoor Advertising, Inc., 244 Cal.App.4th 291 (2016).

[12/21] Marilley v. Bonham
In an action brought by a class of nonresident commercial fishers challenging California?s nonresident fee differential for commercial fishing licenses, vessel registration and permits, the district court?s ruling of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs is reversed and remanded where the fee differentials survives a Privileges and Immunities Clause challenge because the differentials are justified by a substantial reason that is closely related to the fees.

[12/20] Stonehill Capital Management v. Bank of the West
In a contracts action arising from a dispute over the auction sale of a syndicated loan, the Appellate Division's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is reversed where the lack of a written sales agreement and plaintiffs' failure to submit a timely cash deposit were not conditions precedent to the formation of the parties' contract and do not render their agreement unenforceable.

Read More

Contracts

[02/16] Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. v. American Asphalt South, Inc.
In a government contracts dispute alleging the tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, the Court of Appeals judgment overturning the trial court's judgment sustaining defendants demurrer, is reversed where plaintiffs' allegations -- that they had submitted the second lowest bids on several contracts awarded to defendant, and that their bids would have been accepted but for defendant's wrongful conduct during the bidding process -- are insufficient because: 1) public works contracts are a unique species of commercial dealings; 2) in the contracts at issue here, the public entities retained broad discretion to reject all bids; 3) the bids were sealed, and there were no postsubmission negotiations; 4) in awarding the contracts, the public entities could give no preference to any bidder based on past dealings, and were required to accept the lowest responsible bid; and 5) in these highly regulated circumstances, plaintiffs had 'at most a hope for an economic relationship and a desire for future benefit.' Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 331.

[02/09] Leighton v. Forster
In an action for breach of an attorney fee contract and an account stated, seeking damages in excess of $114,000, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is affirmed where: 1) the evidence establishes there was no written fee contract; and 2) absent a written agreement, defendant is not liable to plaintiff.

[02/08] Jacobs v. Locatelli
In a complaint filed by a real estate broker claiming she is owed a commission for her efforts to sell a parcel of property in Marin County, and alleging that, although certain owners did not sign the agreement that promised the commission, the owner who did sign the contract told her that he was signing as the agent of the others, who had formed a joint venture, the trial court's judgment sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend, is reversed where neither the statute of frauds nor the parol evidence rule bar either of her claims.

[02/06] Mediterranean Shipping Co. v. Best Tire Recycling, Inc.
In a dispute arising out of a contract for the shipment of used tires from Puerto Rico to Vietnam, which accrued demurrage charges, port storage charges, and related administrative fees, apparently because it arrived late to Vietnam, the district court finding that defendant was the shipper, and therefore, pursuant to the bills of lading, was liable for the charges and fees to the carrier, is affirmed where was designated as the shipper on the bills of lading.

Read More

Government Contracts

[02/16] Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. v. American Asphalt South, Inc.
In a government contracts dispute alleging the tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, the Court of Appeals judgment overturning the trial court's judgment sustaining defendants demurrer, is reversed where plaintiffs' allegations -- that they had submitted the second lowest bids on several contracts awarded to defendant, and that their bids would have been accepted but for defendant's wrongful conduct during the bidding process -- are insufficient because: 1) public works contracts are a unique species of commercial dealings; 2) in the contracts at issue here, the public entities retained broad discretion to reject all bids; 3) the bids were sealed, and there were no postsubmission negotiations; 4) in awarding the contracts, the public entities could give no preference to any bidder based on past dealings, and were required to accept the lowest responsible bid; and 5) in these highly regulated circumstances, plaintiffs had 'at most a hope for an economic relationship and a desire for future benefit.' Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 331.

[02/06] Agility Defense & Government Servs., Inc. v. US
In a government contractor's claim for an equitable adjustment arising out of its fixed price indefinite delivery contract with the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)?s Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service (DRMS), the Court of Federal Claims' denial of the claim is reversed where: 1) the Claims Court's findings that DRMS did not inadequately or negligently prepare its estimates and that Agility did not rely on those estimates are clearly erroneous; and 2) Plaintiff?s receipt of scrap sales and the parties' agreement to clause H.19 do not preclude plaintiff from recovering under this claim.

[01/24] Hudson v. Super. Ct.
In a petition to set aside a indictment under Penal Code section 995, involving an alleged violation of Government Code section 1090, which prohibits members of the Legislature, state, county, district, judicial district, and city officers or employees from entering into contracts, in an official capacity, in which they are financially interested, the petition is granted in part where the petition succeeds as to issues concerning the rule set forth in In re Williamson (1954) 43 Cal.2d 651, but it fails with respect to petitioner's complaints about the People's allegations regarding tolling of the statute of limitation.

[01/12] US ex rel. Kelly v. Serco, Inc.
In an action under the False Claims Act, alleging that plaintiff's former employer submitted fraudulent claims for payment to the United States for work done under a government contract, specifically the Advanced Wireless Systems Spectrum Relocation Project, a project to upgrade the wireless communications systems situated along the US-Mexico border for the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection (DHS), the district court's summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where plaintiff did not satisfy the standard for materiality set forth in Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. USex rel. Escobar, 136 S. Ct. 1989 (2016) because there was no genuine issue of material fact as to the materiality of Serco's compliance with the American National Standards Institute/Electronic Industries Alliance Standard 748 (ANSI-748) or its obligation to provide valid earned value management (EVM) reports.

Read More

Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.

Practice Areas

Contact us for a Free Consultation

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close
Office Location

Rippetoe Law, P.C.
2 Park Plaza, Suite 525
Irvine, CA 92614
Phone: 949-852-0020
Fax: 949-852-0021
Map and Directions

Print This Page