Petitioner, a law firm, appealed from a judgment on the pleadings in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County - timscotty/timscotty GitHub Wiki

Petitioner, a law firm, appealed from a judgment on the pleadings in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which found a restriction in a partnership termination agreement unenforceable.

Overview: Caso relacionado con discriminación - Recibo (more) propinas que tú.

Petitioner, a law firm, included a noncompetition clause in its partnership agreement and provided that any partner violating that provision would forfeit all rights to which he would otherwise be entitled under the agreement. When a group of attorneys left to form another competing firm, petitioner attempted to enforce the agreement. The trial court dismissed the complaint. Petitioner sought a writ of mandate from the appellate court. Granting the petition, the court vacated and remanded, directing the trial court to allow evidence to determine whether the challenged provision was an agreement for liquidated damages or a forfeiture.

The court vacated and remanded, directing the trial court to allow evidence to determine whether the challenged provision was an agreement for liquidated damages or a forfeiture.

Defendant debtor appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which granted a demurrer without leave to amend and a motion for summary judgment to plaintiff creditor against defendant's cross-complaint.

Defendant debtor filed a cross-complaint against plaintiff creditor on five claims: an accounting, damages for trespass, damages for forcible entry, an unlawful detainer judgment, and declaratory relief finding that plaintiff fraudulently obtained a permanent injunction against defendant. The trial court granted a demurrer without leave to amend and a motion for summary judgment to plaintiff because the permanent injunction was a final judgment that ended its jurisdiction. On appeal, the court regarded the permanent injunction as a partial summary judgment, which left the trial court with jurisdiction over the remaining claims. The court reversed summary judgment for the first three claims because the court found triable issues of fact. The amount owed by defendant to plaintiff was disputed. The security agreements did not provide plaintiff with exclusive possession of defendant's premises. The demurrer without leave to amend was properly sustained because plaintiff left the premises before defendant filed its cross-complaint. Neither defendant's cross-complaints nor plaintiff's answer supported a claim of fraud, and summary judgment was properly granted for the last claim.

The court reversed in part the summary judgment for plaintiff creditor against defendant debtor's cross-complaint because the amount owed by defendant was disputed, and the security agreement did not grant plaintiff exclusive possession of defendant's premises. The court affirmed the demurrer without leave to amend because plaintiff left the premises. Facts were insufficient to support a fraud claim, and summary judgment was affirmed.