CA Pub. Decisions

In this case, Pearson Ford Co., an automobile dealer, backdated a contract it had entered into with Reginald Nelson, the vehicle buyer. Backdating the contract rendered inaccurate the disclosed annual percentage rate (APR), and resulted in Nelson paying interest for a time period that no contract existed. Pearson Ford also failed to list in the contract Nelson's purchase of automobile liability insurance, and erroneously added the insurance premium to the sales price of the vehicle.
Nelson sued Pearson Ford alleging violations of the Automobile Sales Finance Act (ASFA) (Civ. Code, § 2981 et seq.), California's unfair competition law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.), and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.) (All undesignated statutory references are to the Civil Code.) The trial court certified the matter as a class action, with two classes: the backdating class and the insurance class. After a bench trial, the trial court found Pearson Ford not liable under the ASFA to the backdating class, but liable under the ASFA to the insurance class. It also found Pearson Ford liable to both classes under the UCL, but not the CLRA. The trial court issued certain remedies under the ASFA and the UCL, and awarded Nelson his attorney fees and costs under the ASFA. Both parties appeal.
Nelson asserts the trial court erred in finding Pearson Ford not liable to the backdating class under the ASFA, and not liable under the CLRA. Nelson also contends the trial court erred in the remedies it awarded under the UCL. On cross-appeal, Pearson Ford asserts it complied with the ASFA as to both classes, the class representative (Nelson) lacked standing under the UCL, and the trial court erred in the remedies it awarded under the ASFA and the UCL. Pearson Ford also contends the trial court erred in finding the Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer it made to Nelson invalid; accordingly, it asserts that the attorney fee and costs award should be reversed.
We conclude that the portion of the judgment finding Pearson Ford not liable to the backdating class under the ASFA and the CLRA must be reversed. We agree with Pearson Ford that the trial court erred in the remedies it awarded under the ASFA and the UCL, and that the court erred in issuing a permanent injunction under the UCL as to the insurance class. We agree with Nelson that the portion of the judgment returning to Pearson Ford any sums remaining after the payment of all valid claims must be reversed, and direct the trial court to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 384 as to both classes. We remand the matter to determine, consistent with the views expressed in this opinion, appropriate statutory remedies for: both classes under the ASFA; the insurance class under the ASFA and the UCL; and the backdating class under the CLRA. Finally, we agree with the trial court's conclusion regarding the invalidity of Pearson Ford's Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer.

In this case, Pearson Ford Co., an automobile dealer, backdated a contract it had entered into with Reginald Nelson, the vehicle buyer. Backdating the contract rendered inaccurate the disclosed annual percentage rate (APR), and resulted in Nelson paying interest for a time period that no contract existed. Pearson Ford also failed to list in the contract Nelson's purchase of automobile liability insurance, and erroneously added the insurance premium to the sales price of the vehicle.
Nelson sued Pearson Ford alleging violations of the Automobile Sales Finance Act (ASFA) (Civ. Code, § 2981 et seq.), California's unfair competition law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.), and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.) (All undesignated statutory references are to the Civil Code.) The trial court certified the matter as a class action, with two classes: the backdating class and the insurance class. After a bench trial, the trial court found Pearson Ford not liable under the ASFA to the backdating class, but liable under the ASFA to the insurance class. It also found Pearson Ford liable to both classes under the UCL, but not the CLRA. The trial court issued certain remedies under the ASFA and the UCL, and awarded Nelson his attorney fees and costs under the ASFA. Both parties appeal.
Nelson asserts the trial court erred in finding Pearson Ford not liable to the backdating class under the ASFA, and not liable under the CLRA. Nelson also contends the trial court erred in the remedies it awarded under the UCL. On cross-appeal, Pearson Ford asserts it complied with the ASFA as to both classes, the class representative (Nelson) lacked standing under the UCL, and the trial court erred in the remedies it awarded under the ASFA and the UCL. Pearson Ford also contends the trial court erred in finding the Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer it made to Nelson invalid; accordingly, it asserts that the attorney fee and costs award should be reversed.
We conclude that the portion of the judgment finding Pearson Ford not liable to the backdating class under the ASFA and the CLRA must be reversed. We agree with Pearson Ford that the trial court erred in the remedies it awarded under the ASFA and the UCL, and that the court erred in issuing a permanent injunction under the UCL as to the insurance class. We agree with Nelson that the portion of the judgment returning to Pearson Ford any sums remaining after the payment of all valid claims must be reversed, and direct the trial court to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 384 as to both classes. We remand the matter to determine, consistent with the views expressed in this opinion, appropriate statutory remedies for: both classes under the ASFA; the insurance class under the ASFA and the UCL; and the backdating class under the CLRA. Finally, we agree with the trial court's conclusion regarding the invalidity of Pearson Ford's Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer.

Air Machine Com SRL, an Italian limited company (COM), and Panatta Sport SRL, an Italian limited company (Panatta), (together, petitioners) seek to overturn in this writ of mandate proceeding the trial court's ruling that they generally appeared (and thus forfeited their objection to personal jurisdiction) when they jointly served a statutory offer of settlement under Code of Civil Procedure[1] section 998 (998 offer) on real parties in interest Ponani Sukumar and Southern California Stroke Rehabilitation Associates (together, Sukumar) while their motions to quash service of summons for lack of jurisdiction were pending.

Artis Earl Gorham appeals from an order denying his motions to set aside a 1998 default judgment obtained against him by the County of San Diego Department of Child Support Services (DCSS)[1] and to dismiss the action. He brought his motion to vacate the judgment on grounds the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over him in this case because he was never served with a summons and complaint contrary to the fraudulent representation of the process server's return, and, therefore, the judgment was void. Further, because the summons and complaint were thus not served on him within three years of the date this action was commenced, Gorham also moved for mandatory dismissal of the case under sections 583.210 and 583.250 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Under the unique circumstances of this case, we determine the trial court erroneously concluded it was foreclosed from granting the equitable relief requested by Gorham's failure to timely file his motions under various statutory provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure and the Family Code for relief from a void child support default judgment. Because the court never acquired fundamental personal jurisdiction over Gorham in this case, we reverse the order denying his motions and direct the trial court to dismiss this action.

Artis Earl Gorham appeals from an order denying his motions to set aside a 1998 default judgment obtained against him by the County of San Diego Department of Child Support Services (DCSS)[1] and to dismiss the action. He brought his motion to vacate the judgment on grounds the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over him in this case because he was never served with a summons and complaint contrary to the fraudulent representation of the process server's return, and, therefore, the judgment was void. Further, because the summons and complaint were thus not served on him within three years of the date this action was commenced, Gorham also moved for mandatory dismissal of the case under sections 583.210 and 583.250 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Under the unique circumstances of this case, we determine the trial court erroneously concluded it was foreclosed from granting the equitable relief requested by Gorham's failure to timely file his motions under various statutory provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure and the Family Code for relief from a void child support default judgment. Because the court never acquired fundamental personal jurisdiction over Gorham in this case, we reverse the order denying his motions and direct the trial court to dismiss this action.

Defendant Daniel Richard Loyola was walking down the street at 12:34 a.m. When he saw a deputy sheriff, he turned and walked in the opposite direction. Defendant then discarded a metal container and walked away. The deputy sheriff made contact with defendant and noticed that he was under the influence of a controlled substance. A records check revealed that defendant was on parole. The deputy sheriff retrieved the metal container, and he found that it contained a baggie of methamphetamine and a baggie of marijuana.

James Howard, a young man molested as a child by a Catholic priest, sued the Bishop who retained the priest in the diocese. A jury found the Bishop liable for negligent retention, and the court entered judgment in the amount of $5.5 million: $2.5 million in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive damages. The Bishop settled with Howard while the case was on appeal, and agreed to join Howard in an action against the Bishop's insurers to recover on the judgment and for bad faith failure to defend, settle, and indemnify the molestation case. This action against one of the defendant insurers, American National Fire Insurance Company (American), was adjudicated in a bench trial. The court found American liable for breach of contract and bad faith failure to defend, settle, and indemnify. The court awarded almost $3 million in damages. American appeals the judgment, and plaintiffs appeal the denial of prejudgment interest. In a separate appeal, American challenges the legal costs awarded to plaintiffs in a postjudgment order. We consolidated the two appeals for purposes of oral argument and decision. As discussed below, we modify the judgment to award prejudgment interest but affirm the judgment in all other respects. Court also affirm the postjudgment order awarding costs, with one modification.

James Howard, a young man molested as a child by a Catholic priest, sued the Bishop who retained the priest in the diocese. A jury found the Bishop liable for negligent retention, and the court entered judgment in the amount of $5.5 million: $2.5 million in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive damages. The Bishop settled with Howard while the case was on appeal, and agreed to join Howard in an action against the Bishop's insurers to recover on the judgment and for bad faith failure to defend, settle, and indemnify the molestation case. This action against one of the defendant insurers, American National Fire Insurance Company (American), was adjudicated in a bench trial. The court found American liable for breach of contract and bad faith failure to defend, settle, and indemnify. The court awarded almost $3 million in damages. American appeals the judgment, and plaintiffs appeal the denial of prejudgment interest. In a separate appeal, American challenges the legal costs awarded to plaintiffs in a postjudgment order. We consolidated the two appeals for purposes of oral argument and decision. As discussed below, we modify the judgment to award prejudgment interest but affirm the judgment in all other respects. Court also affirm the postjudgment order awarding costs, with one modification.

The Bay Guardian and the San Francisco Weekly are competing alternative newspapers in the San Francisco Bay Area. Each paper relies on advertising revenue in large part to sustain the publication of the news weekly. San Francisco Weekly offered advertising to business entities at a rate lower than was provided by the Bay Guardian. Consequently, the Bay Guardian sued San Francisco Weekly for unfair competition under California law. It was successful and won a jury verdict of approximately $16 million.
This appeal has been taken by defendants New Times Media (the New Times), San Francisco Weekly (the SF Weekly), and East Bay Express (the Express), from a judgment that awarded plaintiff Bay Area Guardian (the Guardian) damages in an action for violations of Business and Professions Code section 17043 based on sales of advertising at rates below cost for the purpose of harming a competitor.[1] Defendants claim that the trial court erred by failing to admit defense evidence and properly instruct the jury on the essential element in a section 17043 action of proof of the defendant's ability to recoup losses. Defendants also argue that the court gave defective instructions on the intent or â€

The Bay Guardian and the San Francisco Weekly are competing alternative newspapers in the San Francisco Bay Area. Each paper relies on advertising revenue in large part to sustain the publication of the news weekly. San Francisco Weekly offered advertising to business entities at a rate lower than was provided by the Bay Guardian. Consequently, the Bay Guardian sued San Francisco Weekly for unfair competition under California law. It was successful and won a jury verdict of approximately $16 million.
This appeal has been taken by defendants New Times Media (the New Times), San Francisco Weekly (the SF Weekly), and East Bay Express (the Express), from a judgment that awarded plaintiff Bay Area Guardian (the Guardian) damages in an action for violations of Business and Professions Code section 17043 based on sales of advertising at rates below cost for the purpose of harming a competitor.[1] Defendants claim that the trial court erred by failing to admit defense evidence and properly instruct the jury on the essential element in a section 17043 action of proof of the defendant's ability to recoup losses. Defendants also argue that the court gave defective instructions on the intent or â€

A modification decision.

The California Self-Service Storage Facility Act (the Act) (Bus. and Prof. Code, § 21700 et seq.)[1] regulates certain aspects of the relationship between owners and renters of storage units at self-service storage facilities. In this case, we address the following question: Does the Act prohibit a self-service storage facility from continuing to charge rent and late fees to the renter of a storage unit after the facility has terminated the renter's right to access the unit due to nonpayment of rent? In the present case, plaintiff and appellant Araceli Vitug (appellant) rented a storage unit from defendant and respondent Alameda Point Storage, Inc. (respondent). After appellant fell behind on her rent payments, respondent sent her by certified mail a preliminary lien notice and then a notice of lien sale, which stated that her â€

Plaintiffs Mercedes Perlas and Len Villacorta (appellants) appeal the dismissal of their action against defendants GMAC Mortgage, LLC (GMAC), and ETS Services, LLC (ETS)[1] (collectively, respondents). Appellants borrowed money from GMAC, a commercial mortgage lender. Following their failure to make the required loan payments, the underlying security was foreclosed upon. In the published portion of this decision, we reject appellants' claim that they could rely upon GMAC's knowingly false determination that they qualified for the loans as a determination by GMAC that they could afford the loans. In the unpublished portion, Court reject appellants' other contentions.

In October 2005, following an extensive investigation, the Commissioner of the California Department of Insurance (the Commissioner) entered into a settlement agreement with a number of related insurance companies (the insurers) resolving allegations that the insurers' claims-handling procedures violated the Insurance Code.[1] In the present action, plaintiff Rick Schwartz alleges numerous causes of action against the insurers who are parties to the settlement agreement, and also petitions for a writ of mandate directed at the Commissioner. Plaintiff purports to represent classes of California residents holding disability income policies issued by the insurers who, like him, submitted no claims under their policies but allegedly were overcharged for their policies in view of the insurers' unlawfully restrictive claims procedures and who received no benefit under the terms of the settlement agreement. Plaintiff appeals from an order dismissing the petition for a writ of mandate, which sought to compel the Commissioner to pursue additional remedies against the insurers that will inure to the benefit of class members. He contends the trial court erred in concluding that the Commissioner does not have a ministerial duty to seek the additional relief and abused its discretion in failing to seek that relief. Court disagree and shall affirm the order dismissing the action against the Commissioner.