Petitioner son of decedent challenged the judgment of respondent Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which denied decedent's son's request for an order directing witnesses to answer certain questions on the ground that decedent's son had failed to show that he had a cause of action.
Overview
Decedent's son alleged that he expected to be a party to an action against the witnesses to determine his rights under a written contract between decedent and one witness to make mutual wills. The court let a writ of mandate issue directing the trial court to set aside its order preventing completion of depositions because although the court found that it was unclear whether decedent's son had to show he had cause of action, he stated facts which, if true, would have entitled him to relief.
Outcome
A labor law lawyer was acting as the court’s referee and analyzed the issues presented. The court let the writ of mandate issue.
Procedural Posture
Plaintiffs, an equipment company and its leasing subsidiary, appealed from adverse judgments on separate jury verdicts in the Superior Court of Alameda County (California), which awarded defendant purchaser compensatory and punitive damages on defendant's cross-complaint for fraud, misrepresentation, breach of contract and abuse of process in connection with plaintiffs' contempt action for payments for faulty equipment sold to defendant.
Overview
Defendant purchaser agreed to buy a used forklift based on the representations of plaintiff equipment company's sales agent, and then was advised by a different agent to buy a different forklift when the first proved faulty. The second agent told defendant that he would be credited for payments made on the faulty forklift. The agent then sold the faulty forklift to a third party who defaulted on the payments. Plaintiff leasing company, unaware of the third party purchase, pursued defendant for the payments, and hired an attorney to collect. The attorney filed a contempt order, to which defendant cross-complained, alleging fraud, misrepresentation, and breach of implied warranty of fitness and merchantability. A jury awarded defendant compensatory damages from plaintiff equipment company and both compensatory and punitive damages from plaintiff's leasing subsidiary. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that plaintiffs were sufficiently integrated to hold both liable for the acts of the agents, that the agents' representations provided a basis for a fraud finding, and that punitive damages was proper for the acts of the attorney for abuse of process in filing the contempt order.
Outcome
The court affirmed the award of damages to defendant purchaser on its cross-complaint against plaintiff equipment company and leasing subsidiary, given sufficient evidence of fraudulent misrepresentations by plaintiffs' agents regarding the equipment sold to defendant. The finding of abuse of process and malicious prosecution was sufficient to hold plaintiff leasing subsidiary separately liable for punitive damages.
