Plaintiffs sued defendants over water drainage damages to plaintiffs' property arising from defendants' lands. Issues were raised over evidence of specific soil and water conditions.
Mobile home owners sued their mobile home park owners. Question whether a new mobile home park rule which restricted resales to the value of the mobile home excluding the value of the space was void and unenforceable under the protection of homeowners under the Mobile Home Residency Law that prohibits the park owners from placing restrictions on the sales price.
During a major storm, plaintiffs’ properties were inundated with water and debris after culverts under a State highway became clogged and channeled the flow from the creeks onto their properties. Plaintiffs filed action for inverse condemnation against the State. Question was whether there was undisputed evidence that established the State’s liability and whether strict liability applied.
Plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer action against his tenant. Plaintiff asserted that defendant was a tenant at will. Issue was whether the tenant was a prevailing party entitled to attorney's fees and costs under the lease provisions.
Plaintiff was high bidder in a nonjudicial foreclosure sale pursuant to a deed of trust. Bank lender allowed the prior homeowners to make an untimely reinstatement payment. Plaintiff sued for breach of contract. Issue was whether the foreclosure sale void.
Husband and wife dismissed plaintiff general contractor from their home remodel project. Contractor sued for breach of contract and foreclosure on a mechanic's lien. Issues: breach of contract for failure to maintain workers' compensation insurance for employees, quality of work, timeliness of completion, and unjust enrichment.
After plaintiff remodeled a home for defendants a dispute arose over the amount of payment. The parties’ agreement was not in writing as required by Business and Professions Code section 7159. Plaintiff brought an action in which he alleged various causes of action and sought recovery in quantum meruit. Defendants filed a cross-complaint for recovery of possession of personal property, damages, and breach of contract.
Plaintiff sued defendant for breach of a commercial lease. Issues concerned the interpretation of the lease, whether defendant was entitled to rescind the lease for unilateral mistake or material misrepresentation, and whether the lease violated zoning requirements.
County sued a non-profit business for violation of building codes and zoning ordinance. Defendant business had begun to develop and use its property to conduct religious services in violation of those codes and ordinance. Issue was whether there was an existence of a public nuisance.
Defendant attempted to exercise its options to purchase three buildings that it leased from plaintiff . Plaintiff who had previously claimed that the options were invalid, claimed that defendant’s letters attempting to exercise the options were invalid attempts because defendant asserted in the letters that it was not required to pay rent between the exercise and close of escrow. Plaintiff sued defendant alleging that the options were invalid and that the attempted exercise was invalid.
Plaintiffs as individuals sued defendants in connection with a real estate joint venture. Plaintiffs alleged numerous causes of action, including fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and negligence. Issues concerned whether damages were speculative and attorney's fees.
Plaintiff sued owners of adjacent property over an easement dispute. At issue was how to interpret a recorded deed burdening her property with a view easement for the benefit of the adjacent property owned by defendants and whether to admit extrinsic evidence to aid in interpreting the language of the easement.
Plaintiff sued defendant neighbor in an action regarding an access easement through defendant's property. Issues were whether there was an express deeded easement through defendant's property and whether a prior settlement agreement barring "obstructions" to the easement precluded a gate defendant had erected across the easement.
Plaintiffs obtained two loans to purchase their home. After they were unable to repay the loans, they filed an action against multiple defendants including individuals and financial institutions for alleged predatory lending practices. Their amended complaint alleged conspiracy to commit fraud; breach of fiduciary duty; unfair business practices; breach of title insurance contract; and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Issues concerned the elements of conspiracy.
Plaintiffs obtained two loans to purchase a house. After they were unable to repay these loans, they filed an action against multiple defendants for alleged predatory lending practices. They alleged that defendant, an appraiser, participated in a conspiracy with the other named defendants by falsely inflating the value of their house.
Dispute over the sale of real property caused plaintiff to file a lawsuit against three defendants asserting equitable claims of specific performance and quiet title. Issues concern whether plaintiff could recover damages for breach of contract and for intentional interference with economic advantage. Other issues covered unjust enrichment and damages.
Plaintiff filed an action against financial institution defendants alleging improprieties in the execution of her mortgage, subsequent assignments, and the nonjudicial foreclosure process involving a residence co-owned with her husband. She sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as monetary damages.
Plaintiff sued landlord for breach of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment, breach of duty of care, landlord retaliation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Issue concerned the imposing of terminating sanctions.
Plaintiff purchased of a home which she discovered had problems with the floors, windows, and ventilation. She sued the owners of the complex, the builders, and others. Issues were regarding her causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of fitness for a particular purpose, and negligence.