Defendant corporation brought a petition for a writ of mandate pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(1), seeking to compel the Superior Court, Los Angeles County (California) to enter a summary judgment in its favor in an action by plaintiffs alleging defendant made misrepresentations in connection with a private placement memorandum which was utilized to solicit plaintiffs as investors in connection with the lease of a medical scanner.
Plaintiffs, certain investors, brought an action against defendant, a financial corporation, alleging defendant made misrepresentations in connection with a private placement memorandum used to solicit plaintiffs to invest in the lease of a medical scanner. The trial Negligence CACI denied defendant's motion for summary judgment. Defendant brought a petition for a writ of mandate pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc.§ 437c(1), seeking to compel the trial court to enter a summary judgment in its favor. The court ruled that plaintiffs' interrogatory answers contained no evidence to support a theory of liability on defendant's part and that the interrogatory responses, when relied upon by defendant in its separate statement of undisputed facts, were sufficient to shift the burden of proof to plaintiffs, pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(o)(2), to demonstrate there was a triable issue concerning the correctness of their claims. The court granted the writ, concluding that plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of material fact and that defendant could rely on factually devoid discovery responses to shift the burden of proof pursuant to § 437c(o)(2).
Petition for a writ of mandate was granted, and the trial court was ordered to enter summary judgment in favor of defendant corporation, where plaintiff investors failed to sustain their burden of proving that various fraud causes of action had merit, there was no basis for a finding of fraud or breach of a fiduciary relationship, and there was no right to an accounting where none was necessary.
Plaintiff client sought review of a decision of the Superior Court of San Diego County (California), which granted summary judgment in favor of defendant attorneys in plaintiff's attorney malpractice suit.
Plaintiff client, a corporation, sued defendant attorneys for legal malpractice after defendants failed to file an action regarding the denial of an administrative claim over a municipal contract. Defendants argued that they were entitled to summary judgment because the statute of limitations had run. The reviewing court agreed. Although plaintiff filed its legal malpractice suit within one year as required by Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340.6(a), it did so during the time its corporate powers had been suspended under Cal. Rev. § Tax. Code § 23301. A corporation which has been suspended pursuant to Cal. Rev. § Tax. Code § 23301 is without capacity to prosecute a civil action while suspended. Plaintiff's certificate of revivor could not act to prejudice defendants' statute of limitations defense. Defendants discharged their fiduciary duties, so they were not estopped from the defense.
A decision that granted summary judgment in favor of defendant attorneys in plaintiff client's attorney malpractice suit was affirmed because plaintiff's corporate powers were suspended at the time it filed the suit.
