Plaintiff purchaser brought an action to adjudicate his rights to certain real property pursuant to a contract with defendant seller - timscotty/timscotty GitHub Wiki

Procedural Posture Plaintiff purchaser brought an action to adjudicate his rights to certain real property pursuant to a contract with defendant seller. The seller filed a motion for change of venue to the county in which the real property was located. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) denied the motion, and the seller appealed.

Overview: What is an eeo attorney and what do they do

The purchaser claimed that the seller had breached his agreement to reconvey assignments of the property back to the purchaser. The purchaser filed his original complaint in the county in which the seller and defendant title insurance company had their principal places of business. The seller sought to have the action transferred on the basis that the action was a local action relating to real property in another county. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court held that even though the purchaser's amended complaint added fictitiously named parties who now held title to property, the purchaser was still proceeding on the same cause of action on the contract that had been the subject of the earlier pleadings. The purchaser's entitlement to an adjudication of its interest in the land was merely a potential form of relief. Thus, the nature of the action was transitory, and the action was properly brought at the residence of the seller.

Outcome The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the seller's motion for a change of venue.

Procedural Posture Plaintiff shipper challenged the judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County (California), that allowed defendant carrier to recover undercharges from it; defendant cross-appealed from the denial of its post-trial motion for attorney fees.

Overview: Plaintiff alleged that trial court erred in that: (1) its motion for continuance should have been granted; (2) it was entitled to prevail because defendant had misled it regarding the true cost of defendant's services; (3) public policy did not require further payments by it; and (4) the amount of the judgment should have been reduced because defendant had saved expenses and because the wrong rates were applied to some shipments. The court affirmed the judgment below with respect to plaintiff. The court found that at most, plaintiff established that there was some evidence in support of its factual contentions. However, this fell short of demonstrating that the trial court drew unreasonable inferences and improperly resolved evidentiary conflicts. There was substantial evidence supporting the trial court's conclusions. The court reversed the decision with respect to defendant's post-trial motion for attorney fees despite plaintiff's argument that since the contract was illegal, the attorneys' fee provision never matured into an enforceable right. The court noted that here, the contract, though not its illegal terms, was enforced.

Outcome The judgment of the lower court with respect to plaintiff was affirmed because there was substantial evidence to support the trial court's conclusions; the judgment with respect to defendant's motion for attorney fees was reversed because the contract, though not its illegal terms, was enforced.