premium_blog

Defendant contractor and cross-defendant surety appealed the order of the Contra Costa County Superior Court (California), which awarded cross-defendant completion costs pursuant to an indemnification agreement and awarded defendant damages, prejudgment interest, and attorney fees and costs for a breach of contract and interference with prospective economic relations.Defendant contractor business acquisition lawyer was terminated from a public works project. Cross-defendant surety recovered completion costs from defendant under their indemnification agreements executed in connection with performance bonds. Defendant recovered on its tort and breach of contract claims. Both parties appealed. The court reversed in part as to the tort claim of interference with prospective economic relations…

The People appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of Marin County (California), which declined to order restitution for investigative costs to government agencies that had investigated the defendant's crimes. The defendant was convicted of two felonies, grand theft by fraud, Cal. Penal Code § 484(a), and filing false and fraudulent sales and use tax returns, Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code § 7153.5, on a negotiated plea of guilty.The criminal charges arose out of a scheme by the defendant to sell regular gasoline as higher-priced mid-grade and premium gasoline. Defendant's business also failed to remit to the State Board of Equalization the full amount of the sales taxes collected on gasoline sold at his stations. The court held that investigative costs were not generally recoverable as res…

Appellant buyer challenged a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which denied its motion under the mandatory provision of Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b), to set aside a summary judgment entered against it in its breach of contract and fraud action against respondent seller.The court held that the mandatory provision of Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b), did not encompass summary judgments. The mandatory provision empowered the trial court to vacate "any (1) resulting default entered by the clerk against his or her client, and which will result in entry of a default judgment, or (2) resulting default judgment or dismissal entered against his or her client." It did not authorize a court to set aside a summary judgment, and a summary judgment was neither a "…