Superior Court of Santa Clara County

Procedural Posture

Respondent, a lessee's realtor in a complex commercial lease transaction, filed a complaint against the lessee and appellants, a lessor and its agent (lessor), seeking a commission. The lessor successfully attacked the realtor's complaint. The realtor successfully demurred to the lessor's cross-complaint. The Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California, entered a judgment by which neither party took anything. The lessor and realtor appealed.

Overview

The trial court denied the lessor's motions to vacate the judgment and for an award of attorney fees. The court held that the realtor did not have a duty to inform the lessor, after the lease was signed but before the lessee took possession, that the lessee's ability to perform the conditions of the lease was jeopardized by its deteriorating financial condition. The lessor failed to plead facts sufficient to establish any duty on the realtor's part to disclose that information. The lessor's allegations of damage, causation, inducement, and fraudulent intent were all woefully deficient. There was no allegation that the lessor was ever led to believe, or did believe, or rationally could have believed, that the realtor was representing its interests. Disclosure of the lessee's confidential information to the lessor, without the lessee's consent, would unquestionably have constituted a breach of the realtor's fiduciary duties to the lessee. The lessor failed to allege facts sufficient to establish negligence. Because the realtor could not have recovered its attorney fees had it prevailed on its claims, the lessor had no reciprocal right to fees under Civ. Code, § 1717.

Outcome: risk of joint venture

The court affirmed the judgment and the order denying attorney fees. The court dismissed the appeal from the order denying the motion to vacate, as well as the cross-appeal.

Procedural Posture

Appellant cruise passenger challenged an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) granting a motion of respondent cruise line seeking dismissal of appellant's class action allegations as lacking community of interest in common questions of law and fact.

Overview

Appellant cruise passenger filed a class action complaint against respondent cruise line alleging a variety of claims against respondent arising out of alleged illnesses of other passengers during the cruise. Respondent's motion to dismiss the class allegations was granted. On appeal, the court affirmed, and held that a class action was maintainable only when there exists a community of interest in common questions of law and fact among the claimants, and it is likely that the combination of claims in a single action will substantially benefit both the claimants and the courts. The court further held that no such community of interest existed in a case in which each claimant's right to recover would be based on facts peculiar to the claimant's case.

Outcome

The court affirmed the order dismissing appellant cruise passenger's class action allegations, holding that a requisite community of interest between the prospective class members did not exist where each claimant's right to recover would be based on facts peculiar to the claimant's case.