Fear Not Law Articles: PEOPLE ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF CORPORATIONS v. SPEEDEE OIL CHANGE SYSTEMS, INC.,

PEOPLE ex rel

PEOPLE ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF CORPORATIONS v. SPEEDEE OIL CHANGE SYSTEMS, INC.,

Filed 2/1/07

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF CORPORATIONS,

Plaintiff,

SPEEDEE OIL CHANGE SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,

Defendants and Appellants;

BELDOON CORPORATION, et al.,

Intervenors and Respondents.

B188775

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. BC109765)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Victor H. Person, Judge. Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

Fitzgerald Abbott & Beardsley, Edward M. Keech and Dawn Newton for Defendants and Appellants.

Terrence A. Beard for Intervenors and Respondents Jon Andersen, Jerry Beezley, M.G. Han, Sam Lau, and Christopher Mack.

Craig J. Bassett for Intervenors and Respondents Beldoon Corporation, Donald Almen, and Belva Almen.

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendants, SpeeDee Oil Change Systems, Inc., NoCal, Inc., Gary L. Copp, and Kevin M. Bennett, appeal from a January 6, 2006 order awarding attorney fees on appeal to plaintiffs in intervention, Beldoon Corporation, Donald Almen, Belva Almen, Jon Andersen, Jerry Beezley, M.G. Han, Sam Lau, and Christopher Mack (the intervenors). The intervenors argue that they are entitled to fees pursuant to the attorney fees clause in several franchise agreements; all of which contain the same language.^{^[1]} The attorney fee clause provides that the party in whose favor the â€

Description	Court of appeal ruling reversing trial court's award of fees to defendant as to contract claims was not a final judgment within the meaning of the attorney fee clause in franchise agreement, which provided that "the party in whose favor final judgment shall be entered shall be entitled to recover from the other reasonable attorney's fees." Court's prior judgment of nonsuit in defendant's favor, which had been affirmed on appeal and as to which supreme court denied review, was controlling judgment and thus entitled defendants to attorney fees.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.