Kopitar v. Superior Court
In this writ proceeding, petitioners, Wireless Eye, Inc., Bruce Kopitar and US Tower Corporation, challenge the trial courts grant of summary adjudication in favor of real party in interest, Centex Homes (Centex), on Wireless Eyes cause of action for breach of an oral contract. Through this oral contract, Wireless Eye agreed to provide video security surveillance for Centex construction sites. The trial court held that the contract violated the statute of frauds because, by its terms, the contract could not be performed within one year.
Wireless Eye disputes the trial courts interpretation. According to Wireless Eye, the parties agreed that Wireless Eyes services could be terminated for cause if those services were ineffective in deterring and catching criminals. Wireless Eye argues that, because this terminating condition could have occurred within one year, the oral contract falls outside the statute of frauds.
As discussed below, the alleged terminating condition, if established, would take the oral contract outside the statute of frauds. Thus, there exists a triable issue of material fact, i.e., whether this terminating condition was part of the oral contract. Accordingly, the trial court will be directed to vacate its order granting summary adjudication and enter a new order denying the motion.
A peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the trial court to vacate the portion of its order filed October 24, 2006, that granted Centexs motion for summary adjudication of Wireless Eyes first cause of action in its third amended complaint for breach of oral contract and to enter a new order denying Centexs motion. Costs on this original proceeding are awarded to petitioners.
Comments on Kopitar v. Superior Court