Appellant owner challenged a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County - timscotty/timscotty Wiki

Procedural Posture Appellant owner challenged a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County (California) entered in favor of appellee subcontractor in an action for breach of contract seeking to recover payment for materials and labor provided to general contractors on the owner's behalf. The owner asserted that the trial court erred in denying her motion to strike the amended complaint.

Overview: Pursuant to Vehicle Code 23153 a it is illegal to drive a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.

The subcontractor filed an action against the owner seeking to recover payment for materials and labor provided to general contractors who where building her a bungalow. The trial court rendered judgment for the subcontractor, and the owner appealed asserting that the trial court erred in denying her motion to strike the amended complaint. The court disagreed and affirmed a modified judgment. It held that the trial court erred in denying the motion to strike the amended complaint because the amendment asserted a cause of action for breach of promise which could not have been joined properly with the first cause of action based on agency. However, the court ruled that, as these errors affected only matters of pleading and procedure, they did not prejudice the owner's substantial rights, and thus, were not reversible errors. The court modified the judgment because in ordering the subcontractor to supply the owner with certain fixtures in exchange for others, which were allegedly defective, the trial court exceeded the issues framed by the pleadings, which sought only monetary damages.

Outcome The court modified the judgment by striking the order for the subcontractor to supply the owner with replacement fixtures and, as modified, affirmed the judgment in favor of the subcontractor in his action against the owner for breach of contract to pay for materials and labor. Procedural Posture Appellant buyers sought review of the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) that was entered in favor of respondent seller in a breach of contract action. The sellers had filed an action for rescission and damages for breach of a conditional sales contract.

Overview: The buyers contended that the trial court erred in rendering judgment against them on the seller's cross complaint. The buyers asserted that the amount in controversy denied the superior court jurisdiction. The buyer argued that the findings against them and in favor of the seller were wholly unsupported by the evidence and that the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to enter judgment in the buyers' favor. On appeal, the court stated that because the superior court had jurisdiction over the cause of action that was set forth in the buyers' complaint, it had jurisdiction over the cause of action that was set forth in the cross-complaint. The court concluded that there was ample evidence to sustain the seller's claims and that the trial court properly concluded that the pump at issue complied with the terms of the conditional sales contract.

Outcome The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.