Pan v. Skyline Technology HK Co. CA4/2
We conclude: (1) the factual allegations in Ping’s SAC did not contradict allegations he made in the original complaint or in the first amended complaint (FAC), and the SAC pleaded a viable cause of action for restitution, so the trial court properly overruled ACI’s demurrer to the SAC; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the “Assignment and Assumption Agreement” (Assignment) into evidence because Ping submitted sufficient evidence, in the form of a final statement from a United States vice consul, to authenticate the Assignment under Evidence Code section 1454; (3) the record contains substantial evidence to support the trial court’s implied and express findings that the general manager for ZiJiang had apparent authority to assign that company’s right to collect on the invoices, and that Ping did not exceed his authority as general manager when he assigned Heng Cheng’s rights; (4) the record does not support Skyline’s characterization of a ha
Comments on Pan v. Skyline Technology HK Co. CA4/2