1 Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review Law Reviews Joint Venture: Be Careful, You May Have Created One Jay B. Lake Recommended Citation Jay B. Lake, Joint Venture: Be Careful, You May Have Created One, 6 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 191 (1986). Available at: This Notes and Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Digital Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact
2 JOINT VENTURE: BE CAREFUL, YOU MAY HAVE CREATED ONE In April Enterprises v. KTTV and Metromedia, Inc.,' the California Court of Appeal for the Second District breathed new life into the ageold adage that actions speak louder than words. In a lawsuit disputing the production and syndication rights of the "Winchell-Mahoney Time" television show, the court ruled that a joint venture had been created due to the nature of the contract and the conduct of the parties, notwithstanding express language to the contrary. In 1965, April Enterprises ("April"), a television series producer, entered into a written contract with KTTV and Metromedia, Inc., a television station, for the production and syndication of the "Winchell-Mahoney Time" television show. 2 In 1968, April and KTTV entered into a new contract which implemented the syndication clause of the orginal 1965 contract by substantially altering the parties' syndication and revenue rights under the 1965 agreement, giving KTTV exclusive rights to syndication. 3 The 1968 contract was to terminate automatically in five years or earlier if the shows were not broadcast for a certain length of time. April alleged that in 1969 it attempted to purchase the video tapes of the "Winchell-Mahoney Time" show from KTTV in order to negotiate syndication agreements with various third parties. 4 Between November 1969 and March 1970, presumably in response to April's attempt to purchase the video tapes, KTTV sent April two letters offering to purchase the exclusive rights to broadcast and license the show for an additional two years, but subject to different terms from those in the 1968 agreement. In the second of these letters, dated March 31, 1970, KTTV Cal. App. 3d 805, 195 Cal. Rptr. 421 (1983). 2. The 1965 agreement set forth the rights of the respective parties regarding the production and syndication of the show. Section 4 gave KTTV ownership rights to all the video tapes of the show. Section 17 provided that both April and KTTV had the right to initiate syndication with third parties. Additionally, each party was to receive fifty percent of the net profits gained through syndication. Section 17(c) stated that KTTV could erase the video tape of each show six months after it was first broadcast. Id. at , 195 Cal. Rptr. at In the 1968 agreement, KTTV had the exclusive right to initiate syndication while the contract remained in effect; however, KTTV could no longer erase the tapes of the show. April's syndication revenue would now be twenty percent instead of the fifty percent granted under the first contract. Furthermore, because KTTV had exclusive syndication rights, April could no longer initiate syndication. Id. at 814, 195 Cal. Rptr. at The court assumed April had no right to negotiate these agreements while the 1968 contract remained in effect. Id.
3 LO YOLA ENTERTAINMENT LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 6 advised April that if April did not accept the new terms, the video tapes would be destroyed. The tapes were in fact erased by KTTV. s April alleged that it first discovered that the video tapes had been erased at an unknown date in Soon thereafter April filed suit for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty based on a joint venture. KTTV demurred on the grounds that April failed to state a cause of action on both breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract, and that both actions were barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court rejected the demurrer as well as KTTV's first motion for judgment on the pleadings, which was based on the same assertions as the demurrer. After rejecting April's second amended complaint, the court reversed its earlier denial, and granted KTTV's motion on the pleadings, as well as KTTV's motion of nonsuit. April appealed the rulings of the trial court. 6 The Court of Appeal first addressed April's contention that the erasure of the video tapes was a breach of the covenant of fair dealing under the terms of the 1965 agreement, on the ground that the erasure interfered with April's right to profit from future syndication of the show. 7 KTTV argued that because the 1965 agreement expressly provided that KTTV had the right to erase the tapes, 8 the court should apply the general rule that a covenant cannot be implied where a contract is not ambiguous. 9 However, the court looked to the terms and purpose of the 1965 contract and found the contract to be ambiguous and inherently contradictory. 10 The syndication clause, Section 17, granted April the right to sale and syndication of the show, yet simultaneously allowed KTTV to erase the video tapes. The court concluded that the contradictory terms could be reconciled by limiting the erasure clause by the implied covenant of fair dealing. This meant that KTTV's right to erase the tapes was restricted to situations where future syndication of the "Win- 5. Id. 6. Id. at 815, 195 Cal. Rptr. at 424. In review, the Court of Appeals accepted to be true all facts on the face of the pleading and in the opening statement. In review of the judgment on the pleading, the court looked only to the 1965 agreement because it was the only contract alleged to have been breached in April's first amended complaint. However, with regard to the judgment of nonsuit, the court considered both the 1965 and the 1968 agreements because both were alluded to in April's opening statement. Id. at 815, 195 Cal. Rptr. at Id. at , 195 Cal. Rptr. at 426. Under the 1965 contract, both April and KTTV held the right to initiate syndication. 8. Id. Section 17(c) of the 1965 agreement gave KTTV the right to erase the tapes of each show six months after first being aired. 9. Id. at 816, 195 Cal. Rptr. at 425. KTTV relied on Witt v. Union Oil Co., 99 Cal. App. 3d 435, 441, 160 Cal. Rptr. 285, 289 (1979) (an implied covenant cannot override an express covenant in a contract). See also I B. WITKIN, SUMMARY OF CALIFORNIA LAW 497 (8th ed. 1973). 10. April, 147 Cal. App. 3d at 816, 195 Cal. Rptr. at 425.
4 19861 JOINT VENTURE chell-mahoney Time" show was not feasible. Similarly, applying the implied covenant of fair dealing insured that April would not be deprived of the future rights to syndication which it bargained for under the 1965 agreement. " The pivotal question confronting the court was whether April had set forth a cause of action for breach of a fiduciary duty by a joint venturer. The court in making its determination looked first to the judgment on the pleadings, and then to the judgment of nonsuit. 12 In finding the presence of a joint venture, the court first looked at the allegations in April's complaint and found facts necessary to satisfy the assertion that a joint venture had been formed in the 1965 contract.' 3 The court decided that the common business requirement was met by April's assertion that the parties intended to co-produce the shows in preparation for seeking syndication and that each party provided its own resources toward this goal.' 4 The requisite joint control was found based on the fact that each party had equal rights to initiate syndication of the show.' 5 Finally, the court stated that the necessary element that there be a sharing of losses and profits was inferred from the 1965 contract provision that both April and KTTV would receive fifty percent of the profits derived from any syndication of the show. 16 Despite the absence of a clause specifically providing for losses in the 1965 contract, the court was still persuaded by April's allegation that the parties intended to share losses in the same 11. Id. at 817, 195 Cal. Rptr. at 426. The court applied Milstein v. Security Pacific Nat'l Bank, 27 Cal. App. 3d 482, 103 Cal. Rptr. 16 (1972) (where the provisions of a trust deed were ambiguous and contradictory, the court applied a covenant of fair dealing to meet the parties' intentions). Futhermore, the court determined that under the 1968 contract KTTV's exclusive right to syndication lasted only while the contract was in effect. Upon termination of the contract, the syndication rights reverted to April. Thus, the erasing of the tapes deprived April of its future syndication rights under the 1965 contract. Id. at 818, 195 Cal. Rptr. at Id. at , 195 Cal. Rptr. at In dictum, the court concluded that April was alleging that both the 1965 and 1968 agreements implemented an oral joint venture. 13. A joint venture is entered into in order to execute a business transaction for profit. See Nelson v. Abraham, 29 Cal. 2d 745, 177 P.2d 931 (1947). See also Brelsford, Apparent Authority and the Joint Venture. Narrowing the Scope of Agency Between Business Associates, 13 U.C.D.L. REV. 831, 835 (1980). See generally, 6 B. WITKIN, SUMMARY OF CALIFORNIA LAW, Partnership 16, p (8th ed. 1974). The essential elements of a joint venture are: (1) joint interest in a common business; (2) a sharing of profits and losses; and (3) right to joint control. County of Riverside v. Loma Linda Univ., 118 Cal. App. 3d 300, 173 Cal. Rptr. 371 (1981). 14. April, 147 Cal. App. 3d at 819, 195 Cal. Rptr. at Id. 16. Id.
5 LOYOLA ENTERTAINMENT LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 6 proportion as profits. 7 KTTV unsuccessfully contended that the 1965 contract characterization of April as an independent contractor negated any inference of joint venture. The court rejected this argument on the premise that a joint venture may be created by the conduct of the parties regardless of express declarations to the contrary.' In determining whether a joint venture and the requisite fiduciary relationship are formed, the courts will look to the agreement entered into by the parties to see whether the elements for a fiduciary classification have been met, not whether the parties intended the legal consequences of such a relationship.' 9 KTTV next argued that assuming the 1965 conract did create a joint venture between the parties, the succeeding 1968 contract negated it. The basis for this assertion centered on the provision in the 1968 contract that gave KTTV the exclusive right to license and syndicate the show; therefore, KTTV contended, there could be no finding that a joint right of control continued to exist. 2 " The court rejected this argument on two grounds. First, the court placed significance on the fact that KTTV's exclusive right to initiate syndication was only in effect until the 1968 contract expired; that indicated that April and KTTV intended to take turns initiating syndication, with April's turn commencing after termination of the 1968 contract. Secondly, the purposes for which the joint venture was formed had not yet been accomplished, and there was no evidence showing that the joint venture was expressly extinguished. 2 ' As a last effort, KTTV alleged that April's causes of action were barred by the statute of limitations. The court decided that the causes of action were not barred under three separate rules Id. 18. Id. at 820, 195 Cal. Rptr. at 428. See also Universal Sales Corp. v. California Press Mfg. Co., 20 Cal. 2d 751, 128 P.2d 655 (1942). The court noted that whether a joint venture actually exists is a question of fact to be decided by the jury. See also San Francisco Iron & Metal Co. v. American Milling & Indus. Co., 115 Cal. App. 238, 1 P.2d 1008 (1931); Nelson v. Abraham, 29 Cal. 2d 745, 750, 177 P.2d 931, 933 (1947). For purposes of this case, the court held April had alleged sufficient facts to support the assertion of breach of fiduciary duty of a joint venture. 19. Frankel, Fiduciary Law, 71 CALIF. L. REV. 795, 821 (1983). 20. April, 147 Cal. App. 3d at 819, 195 Cal. Rptr. at 427. KTTV also argued that there was no intention on the part of the parties to share losses. This is illustrated by the fact that April was to be paid on the basis of gross receipts instead of on the basis of net receipts. The court, however, did not reach this issue. The court only considered the allegations relating to the order granting KTTV's motion for nonsuit. Id. at 820, 195 Cal. Rptr. at Id. at , 195 Cal. Rptr. at 428. A joint venture terminates once the purpose for its creation has been fulfilled, or it has been expressly ended. Id. at 821, 195 Cal. Rptr. at 428. See Elias v. Erwin, 129 Cal. App. 2d 313, 317, 276 P.2d 848, 851 (1954). 22. April, 147 Cal. App. 3d at 821, 195 Cal. Rptr. at 429.
6 1986] JOINT VENTURE KTTV asserted that April's causes of action were barred by the statute of limitations under the date of breach and injury rule in that the harm suffered by April was the deprivation of syndication rights which occurred no later than March 31, The court disagreed, stating that review of the factual events leading up to the causes of action and the plain language of the contracts clearly debunked KTTV's argument. The 1968 contract between the parties placed exclusive syndication rights in KTTV until February Thus, April had no syndication rights to the show during the period from 1968 to February Those rights had been suspended by the 1968 contract and April had no actionable claim in March The court further disagreed on the basis that KTTV had completely mischaracterized the nature of the harm suffered by April. April was not suing because KTTV failed to cooperate with efforts to syndicate the show in 1969 or 1970, or because April had been dispossessed of the right to a single syndication deal. April's harm and the basis of its suit was the deprivation of rights to ever syndicate the show under any circumstances. 24 April was totally deprived of the future right to syndicate, which would exclusively revert to April upon termination of the 1968 contract. Therefore, the first time April could maintain an action was when KTTV erased the tapes and forever precluded April from syndicating and receiving benefits under the 1968 contract. 25 Contrary to KTTV's allegations, the court next decided that April's cause of action for breach of the implied covenant was not barred by the time of injury rule because the tapes were erased in 1970 or The court ruled that April's pleading of the discovery of the erasure of the tapes without giving a specific time was not necessarily barred by the statute of limitations, because only KTTV knew when the tapes had ac- 23. Id. at 822, 195 Cal. Rptr. at 429. The court outlined the relationship between the parties on March 31, 1970 as follows: The 1965 contract governed all rights and liabilities of the parties with respect to all aspects of the "Winchell-Mahoney Time" show except those rights and liabilities relating to syndication and, by implication, respondents' former rights of erasure. The rights to initiate future syndication, vested in appellant by the 1965 contract, had been temporarily suspended by the subsequent contract, formed in That agreement gave respondents exclusive rights to syndicate the show until February 11, Id. The court quoted the general rule that a cause of action accrues at the moment the party who owns it is entitled to bring and prosecute an action thereon. The court found that had April filed suit in 1970, KTTV could have pleaded the 1968 contract as a complete defense because April's rights to syndication were temporarily suspended, barring April from bringing an action at that time. Id. at , 195 Cal. Rptr. at Id. at , 195 Cal. Rptr. at Id. at 824, 195 Cal. Rptr. at 431.
7 LOYOLA ENTER TAINMENT LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 6 tually been erased and April had no knowledge to allege when that event had occurred. 2 6 The court next considered whether April in its joint venture action should be bound by the harsh rule that the statute of limitations began to run when the tapes were erased - the last essential element necessary to the cause of action - despite its blameless ignorance of the fact, or by the growing and more sympathetic rule which tolled the statute until April, exercising due diligence, discovered or should have discovered the erasure. 27 The court noted that it is well settled in California that the date of discovery rule applies to causes of action for breach of a fiduciary relationship. 2 " The application of the rule was found to be particularly appropriate in the instant case because KTTV had custody and control of April's property. The court held that due to the fact that April and KTTV were joint venturers in a fiduciary relationship, it would be grossly unfair to April to require the assertion of a cause of action before it could reasonably discover its existence. 29 Finally, the court analyzed whether the date of discovery rule was applicable to a cause of action for breach of contract. The court first noted that in determining whether a statute of limitations is applicable, the right sued on is the factor considered, not the form of action. The 26. Id. at 825, 195 Cal. Rptr. at 432. The general rule in contract cases is that the statute of limitations begins to run upon the occurrence of the last essential element necessary to the cause of action. Here the erasure of the tapes was found to be the last essential element. See Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & Gelfand, 6 Cal. 3d 176, 187, 491 P.2d 421, 428, 98 Cal. Rptr. 837, 844 (1971). The court reasoned that only KTTV knew when the tapes had actually been erased. Thus, April's pleading of the discovery of the erasure just before the filing of the action was not necessarily subject to a time bar for the cause of action. April, 147 Cal. App. 3d at , 832, 195 Cal. Rptr. at 432, Id. at 826, 195 Cal. Rptr. at Id. at 827, 195 Cal. Rptr. at 433. See, e.g., Neel, 6 Cal. 3d at 190, 491 P.2d at 429, 98 Cal. Rptr. at 843 (breach of attorney's duty to client); Jefferson v. J.E. French Co., 54 Cal. 2d 717, 720, 355 P.2d 643, 645, 7 Cal. Rptr. 899, 901 (1960) (breach of agent's duty to principal); San Leandro Canning Co. v. Perillo, 211 Cal. 482, , 295 P. 1026, (1931) (breach of corporate director's duty). 29. April, 147 Cal. App. 3d at 828, 195 Cal. Rptr. at 434. The court's rationale was that plaintiffs ought not be forced to suffer where circumstances prevent knowledge of the injury. Under the circumstances, KTTV, by failing to inform April of the erasure, assumed the risk that the statute of limitations would not commence to run until some future time when April discovered the injury. The court found that April shared common threads found in all actions that successfully applied the discovery rule. These commonalities were that the injury and/or the causing act are difficult for the plaintiff to discover; the defendant's position to understand the act and injury was superior to the plaintiff's; and the defendant could reasonably believe that plaintiff was ignorant of the fact that he was injured. Id. at , 195 Cal. Rptr at See generally O'Neil, Accrual of Statutes of Limitations: California's Discovery Exceptions Swallow the Rule, 68 CALIF. L. REV. 106 (1980).
8 1986] JOINT VENTURE court then ruled that here the breach of the fiduciary duty also constituted a breach of contract; therefore, the cause of action for both breaches occurred upon discovery of the actual erasure of the tapes. 3 The court further found that other grounds existed in this case for applying the discovery rule to the breach of contract claim. Even though California courts continue to follow the date of injury rule, the discovery rule has displaced that rule in a growing number of cases. None, however, showed application of the rule to a breach of contract action except where fraud and misrepresentation were involved. 3 ' Although the court did not reject the California date of injury general rule, it ruled that because of its unusual facts this case merits an exception to the general rule. The court held that the date of discovery rule may be applied where a breach of contract is done in secret and the resulting injury could not reasonably be known by the plaintiff until a later date. 32 The court in April did not rule that there was a breach of the covenant of fair dealing; nor did it determine that KTTV breached the fiduciary duty of a joint venture. What the court did determine was that based on April's complaint, causes of action for those breaches did exist. 3 3 The importance of the court's ruling is the potential for imposing a fiduciary duty on contracting parties where both parties share control over the principal object of the contract. In the entertainment industry, due to the specialization of labor and need for capital, it is often advantageous to enter into agreements similar to the April-KTTV contract. Parties should be aware that in circumstances where the agreement is for a limited purpose, and where both parties retain joint control and share in the profits, the California courts may interpret such agreements as joint ventures with fiduciary duties regardless of the declared intent of the parties. This case illustrates that the courts have begun to analogize new relations similar to existing, established fiduciary relationships, and accordingly are applying the rules 30. April. 147 Cal. App. 3d at 828, 195 Cal. Rptr. at See supra n Id. at , 195 Cal. Rptr. at See also Seelenfreund v. Terminix of N. Cal., Inc., 84 Cal. App. 3d 133, 148 Cal. Rptr. 307 (1978) (statute of limitations on property owner's claim for negligent breach of an oral contract did not commence until the owner discovered or should have discovered material facts at issue); Watts v. Crocker-Citizens Nat'l Bank, 132 Cal. App 3d 516, 183 Cal. Rptr. 304 (1982) (statute of limitations on bank's misrepresentations in contract did not begin to run until the property owner discovered bank's breach); Balfour, Guthrie & Co. v. Hansen, 227 Cal. App. 2d 173, 38 Cal. Rptr. 525 (1964) (statute of limitations was not applicable to bar action on breach of contract in view of fraudulent concealment of defects). 33. See April Enterprises v. KTTV & Metromedia, Inc., 6 WHITTIER L. REV. 400 (1984).
9 198 LOYOLA ENTERTAINMENT LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 6 of law applicable to the existing fiduciary relationships to the new ones. 4 Jay B. Lake 34. See Frankel, Fiduciary Law, 71 CALIF. L. REV. 795, 805 (1983).
Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review Law Reviews 1-1-1983 The Right of Recording
This opinion is subject to revision before publication in the Pacific Reporter 2014 UT 5 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH LORI RAMSAY and DAN SMALLING, Respondents, v. KANE COUNTY HUMAN RESOURCE
Title to Land (Prescription and Limitation) 3 CHAPTER 60:02 TITLE TO LAND (PRESCRIPTION AND LIMITATION) ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS SECTION 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. 3. Title by prescription to
DOUGLAS GILLIES Torino Drive Santa Barbara, CA (0-0 firstname.lastname@example.org in pro per SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA DOUGLAS GILLIES, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE
The Connecticut Law Reporter Advanced Copy Technologi.es, Inc. v. Wiegman, 63 Conn. L. Rptr. 211(October19, 2016) (Vitale, Elpedio N., J.) Advanced Copy Technologies, Inc. v. Christopher Wiegman et al.
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE MIRIAM HAYENGA, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. PAUL GILBERT and JANE DOE GILBERT, husband and wife; L. RICHARD WILLIAMS and JANE DOE WILLIAMS, husband and wife; BEUS
Filed 8/16/12 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR TOUCHSTONE TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS, Petitioner, B241137 (Los Angeles County
LAWS OF KENYA LIMITATION OF ACTIONS ACT CHAPTER 22 Revised Edition 2012  Published by the National Council for Law Reporting with the Authority of the Attorney-General www.kenyalaw.org [Rev. 2012]
In re ST. JUDE MEDICAL, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Civ. No. 0:10-cv-00851-SRN-TNL CLASS ACTION TO: NOTICE OF PROPOSED
11 Cal. 4th 342, *; 902 P.2d 297, **; 1995 Cal. LEXIS 5832, ***; 45 Cal. Rptr. 2d 279 CALIFORNIA FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant
2016 UT App 17 THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS SCOTT EVANS, Appellant, v. PAUL HUBER AND DRILLING RESOURCES, LLC, Appellees. Memorandum Decision No. 20140850-CA Filed January 22, 2016 Fifth District Court, St.
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MARK S. MILLER and PATRICIA R. MILLER, Plaintiffs, Counterdefendants, UNPUBLISHED July 5, 2002 V No. 228861 Wayne Circuit Court ALBERT L. WOKAS and MARYAN WOKAS, LC No.
5 6 7 1 1 1 0 1 5 6 7 DAVID H. SCHWARTZ (SBN 66 LAW OFFICES OF DAVID H. SCHWARTZ, INC. Washington Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, CA 1 Tel: ( -01 Fax: ( -7 E-mail: email@example.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
Pitfalls in Licensing Arrangements Association of Corporate Counsel November 4, 2010 Richard Raysman Holland & Knight, NY Copyright 2010 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved Software Licensing Generally
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE November 5, 2013 Session FRANCES WARD V. WILKINSON REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, INC. D/B/A THE MANHATTEN, ET. AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Anderson County
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT Traci Southwell, Petitioner vs. Superior Court for Marin County, Richard Helzberg and Kathleen McKinley, Real Parties In Interest. From the
Title: The Short Life of a Tort: A Brief History of the Independent Cause of Action for Spoliation of Evidence in California Issue: Oct Year: 2005 The Short Life of a Tort: A Brief History of the Independent
CRAIG C. DANIEL () DAVID T. WEI (0) AXCEL LAW PARTNERS LLP Telephone 1-0-00 Facsimile 1-0-0 Email firstname.lastname@example.org Attorneys for PLAINTIFF CORPORATE CONCEPTS SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review Law Reviews 11-1-1989 Res Judicata: Should California
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-09-00363-CV Mark Buethe, Appellant v. Rita O Brien, Appellee FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. C-1-CV-06-008044, HONORABLE ERIC
Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review Law Reviews 1-1-1986 Employment Contracts:
Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review Law Reviews 3-1-1988 Invasion of Privacy:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 05-0870 444444444444 T. MICHAEL QUIGLEY, PETITIONER, v. ROBERT BENNETT, RESPONDENT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON PETITION FOR REVIEW
CHAPTER 1 7 MOTIONS EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES Paralegals should be able to draft routine motions. They should be able to collect, prepare, and organize supporting documents, such as affidavits. They may be
Shields v. Dolgencorp, LLC Doc. 33 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LATRICIA SHIELDS CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 16-1826 DOLGENCORP, LLC & COCA-COLA REFRESHMENTS USA, INC. SECTION
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1244 UNOVA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ACER INCORPORATED and ACER AMERICA CORPORATION, and Defendants, APPLE COMPUTER INC., GATEWAY INC., FUJITSU
Agreement Number: This Energy Service Provider Service Agreement (this Agreement ) is made and entered into as of this day of,, by and between ( ESP ), a organized and existing under the laws of the state
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two November 22, 2016 MICHAEL NOEL, and DIANA NOEL, individually and as the marital community
Transit Funding Assoc. LLC v Capital One Equip. Fin. Corp. 2017 NY Slip Op 32631(U) December 14, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 652346/2015 Judge: Saliann Scarpulla Cases posted with
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LINDA PERRYMENT, Plaintiff, v. SKY CHEFS, INC., Defendant. Case No. -cv-00-kaw ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO PARTIALLY DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S
NO. 87-501 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1988 DEBRA LANE, Plaintiff and Respondent, -vs- LARRY DUNKLE, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,
Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review Law Reviews 11-1-1996 Responsibility of a Criminal
Filed 6/29/09 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE PATRICIA ANN ROBERTS, an Incompetent Person, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant,
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 DAVID MILLER Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA ANTHONY PUCCIO AND JOSEPHINE PUCCIO, HIS WIFE, ANGELINE J. PUCCIO, NRT PITTSBURGH,
Fordham Law Review Volume 37 Issue 2 Article 3 1968 The Sales Statute of Limitations in the Uniform Commercial Code-Does It Preclude Prospective Implied Warranties? Recommended Citation The Sales Statute
LEGAL RESEARCH, ANALYSIS, AND ADVOCACY FOR ATTORNEYS Founded in 1969, NLRG is the nation s oldest and largest provider of legal research services to attorneys. We have served more than 50,000 attorneys
Arbitration Law Review Volume 3 Yearbook on Arbitration and Mediation Article 21 7-1-2011 Ohio Appellate Court Holds that Statutorily Authorized Awards of Attorney's Fees are Properly Decided by Arbitrators
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 11, 2007 Session BLACKBURN & MCCUNE, PLLC, v. PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES, INC., ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 06-729-1
Love v BMW of N. Am., LLC 2017 NY Slip Op 30528(U) February 21, 2017 Supreme Court, Richmond County Docket Number: 150653/16 Judge: Kim Dollard Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice Volume 36 Issue 3 Electronic Supplement Article 4 April 2016 A Tort Report: Christ v. Exxon Mobil and the Extension of the Discovery Rule to Third-Party Representatives
RENDERED: SEPTEMBER 22, 2017; 10:00 A.M. TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2016-CA-000173-MR CAROLYN BREEDLOVE APPELLANT APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE KIMBERLY
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DATE/TIME: JUDGE: 10:00 a.m. January 9, 2014 HON. EUGENE L. BALONON DEPT. NO.: CLERK: 14 P. MERCADO ISAAC GONZALEZ, JAMES CATHCART, and JULIAN CAMACHO,
Demurrer & Motion to Strike (Judge Deborah C. Servino) DEMURRER The court sustains Defendant State Farm General Insurance Company s ( State Farm ) Demurrer to Plaintiffs Robert Berry and Kristy Velasco-Berry
Case:-cv-0-WHA Document Filed0/0/ Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 ERNEST EVANS, THE LAST TWIST, INC., THE ERNEST EVANS CORPORATION, v. Plaintiffs,
SCHENKEL & SHULTZ, INC. Formerly known as SCHENKEL & SHULTZ, ARCHITECTS, P.A., Plaintiff, v. HERMON F. FOX & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Defendant NO. COA 05-1604 Filed: 21 November 2006 1. Statutes of Limitation
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY SARAH M. WILLIAMS, v. Plaintiff, PENELOPE L. H. HOWE, and JEFFERSON, URIAN, DOANE, and STERNER, P.A., Defendants. C. A. No. 03C-10-054
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 10a0307n.06 No. 09-5907 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, BRIAN M. BURR, On Appeal
Filed 3/7/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO ROBERTO BETANCOURT, Plaintiff and Respondent, E064326 v. PRUDENTIAL OVERALL
SOUTHERN GLAZER S WINE AND SPIRITS, LLC. EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION POLICY Southern Glazer s Arbitration Policy July - 2016 SOUTHERN GLAZER S WINE AND SPIRITS, LLC. EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION POLICY A. STATEMENT
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Suffolk, ss. Superior Court Docket No.: SUCV2011-00055-H Associated Asset Management, LLC. Plaintiff v. Gracelyn Roberts Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff v. James J. Alberino
Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review Law Reviews 3-1-1980 Conviction of Non-Charged Offenses:
HDI CERTIFIED INSTRUCTOR AGREEMENT This HDI Certified Instructor Agreement (the Agreement ) is entered into to be effective the date of acceptance (the Effective Date ) between HDI ( HDI ) a part of UBM
231 Cal.App.3d 1089 (1991) 283 Cal. Rptr. 53 HANS S. NYMARK, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant, v. HEART FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION et al., Defendant, Crosscomplainant and Respondent. 1092*1092
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 12, 2005 Session SPENCER D. LAND, ET AL. v. JOHN L. DIXON, ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamilton County No. 04C986 Samuel H. Payne, Judge
PLEASE READ CAREFULLY BEFORE AGREEING TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS This is a legal Agreement, as amended from time to time, between you ( the Client ) and CHAS 2013 Limited, whose company number is 08466203
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION LOUIS GRASSO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, No. CV 06-02639 vs. Plaintiff, CLASS ACTION VITESSE
No. 15-1439 IN THE CYAN, INC., et al., v. Petitioners, BEAVER COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND, et al., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal of the State of California,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE MINUTE ORDER DATE: 03/20/2014 TIME: 10:25:00 AM JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Raymond Cadei CLERK: D. Ahee REPORTER/ERM: BAILIFF/COURT
AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed July 11, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-00552-CV COLLECTIVE ASSET PARTNERS, LLC, Appellant V. BERNARDO K. PANA, ACCP, LP, AND FIRENZE
False Claims Act Text TITLE 31 MONEY AND FINANCE SUBTITLE III FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT CHAPTER 37 CLAIMS SUBCHAPTER III CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT Sec. 3729. False claims (a) LIABILITY FOR
THIRD AMENDED TRIBAL TORT CLAIMS ORDINANCE SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION BE IT ENACTED BY THE SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION AS FOLLOWS: I. TITLE. This Ordinance shall be entitled the Sycuan Band
Dated: September 2017 LFMI MEDIA SERVICES LIMITED T/A RUE POINT MEDIA TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE SUPPLY OF SERVICES 1. INTERPRETATION 1.1 THE FOLLOWING DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF INTERPRETATION APPLY IN
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed June 15, 2016. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D15-424 Lower Tribunal No. 09-4953 TRG Desert Inn Venture,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 99,793 BARTON J. COHEN, as Trustee of the Barton J. Cohen Revocable Trust, and A. BARON CASS, III, as Trustee of the A. Baron Cass Family Trust, u/t/a dated
NAPD Formal Ethics Opinion 16-1 Question: The Ethics Counselors of the National Association for Public Defense (NAPD) have been asked to address the following scenario: An investigator working for Defense
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CADDO COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA IVAN J. SIMMONS, MADALINE M. THOMPSON, AND GAYLON LEE MITCHUSSON, v. FOR THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS, ANADARKO PETROLEUM
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
2014 IL 115997 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS (Docket Nos. 115997, 116009 cons.) In re ESTATE OF PERRY C. POWELL (a/k/a Perry Smith, Jr.), a Disabled Person (Robert F. Harris, Cook County
Filed 8/ 25/ 16 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 38050 ALESHA KETTERLING, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, BURGER KING CORPORATION, dba BURGER KING, HB BOYS, a Utah based company, Defendants-Respondents. Boise,
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT LAURA M. WATSON, STEPHEN RAKUSIN, and THE RAKUSIN LAW FIRM, Appellants, v. STEWART TILGHMAN FOX & BIANCHI, P.A., WILLIAM C. HEARON, P.A.,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA Appellate Case No. A103827 Appeal from the Superior Court for Solano County Franklin R. Taft, Judge Superior Court Case No. FCS021093 Clyde Terry, Anne Terry, Plaintiffs
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 Barry S. Fagan 0 Roca Chica Dr. Malibu, CA 0 Phone ( 1-10 Fax ( - email@example.com BARRY S. FAGAN, an individual; 1 vs. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, WELLS
RULES GOVERNING THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY RULE 6:6. JUDGMENT 6:6-1. Applicability of Part IV Rules R. 4:42 (insofar as applicable), R. 4:43-3, R. 4:44 to 4:46, inclusive, and R. 4:48 to 4:50,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF WAKE 12 CVS 1742 ANDREA SAUD MARTINEZ, ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) OPINION AND ORDER ) ON MOTION TO DISMISS LUDO REYNDERS
Case 2:04-cv-03541-VAP -RNB Document 656 Filed 06/24/10 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL PRIORITY SEND Case No. Date: June 24, 2010 Title:
NEGLIGENCE WHAT IS NEGLIGENCE? Negligence is unintentional harm to others as a result of an unsatisfactory degree of care. It occurs when a person NEGLECTS to do something that a reasonably prudent person
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE February 15, 2001 Session TERRY S. HAHN v. THOMAS MARTIN HAHN, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Knox County No. 135908-1 Telford Forgety, Jr.,
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 Please note: This sample document is redacted from an actual research and writing project we did for a customer some time ago. It reflects the law as of the date we completed it. Because
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE KOOL RADIATORS, INC, an Arizona 1 CA-CV 11-0071 corporation, DEPARTMENT A Plaintiff/Appellant/ Cross-Appellee, v. STEPHEN EVANS and JANE DOE EVANS,
No. 103,352 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STEVEN K. BLOOM, Appellant, v. FNU ARNOLD, et al., Appellees. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. When an appellate court reviews a district court's decision
Filed 11/18/08 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA STEVEN SURREY, D050881 Plaintiff and Appellant, v. (Super. Ct. No. GIC865318) TRUEBEGINNINGS
1993 General Insurance Convention U.S. Legal System - Implications for UK Insurers Peter Clark Kendra Felisky-Watson Dewi James Tim Mardon The views expressed in this paper are given in our personal capacity
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-23-2014 Paul McArdle v. Verizon Communications Inc Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 13-4207
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JOSEPH MOORE and CINDY MOORE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, UNPUBLISHED November 27, 2001 V No. 221599 Wayne Circuit Court DETROIT NEWSPAPER AGENCY, LC No. 98-822599-NI Defendant-Appellee.