Defendant manufacturers appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County (California) entered upon a jury award in plaintiff patent holders' action of for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, and interference with advantageous business relations. Plaintiffs cross-appealed a judgment against them on claims for violation of the Cartright Act and wrongful termination.
Following defendant manufacturers' acquisition of plaintiff patent holders' company, defendants terminated funding of plaintiffs' company for failure to reach profitability in accordance with the parties' agreement. The Quitclaim Deed California is used to transfer the interest that a person may have in a given piece of real estate to another person. Plaintiffs secured judgment for damages in an action that charged failure to honor defendants' funding commitment. Defendants appealed, arguing as error the admission into evidence of plaintiffs' business plan as the basis of the parties' buyout agreement. The court reversed, ruling that the business plan was not admissible under the parol evidence rule, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1856. The court ruled that the parties' agreement was an integrated contract, which could not be contradicted by evidence of purportedly collateral agreements. The court also ruled that a prior or contemporaneous collateral oral agreement relating to the same subject matter could have been admitted, but only where it was not inconsistent with the terms of the integration. The court found that the agreement specifically reserved to defendants the right to determine funding based upon profit performance standards. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part.
The court reversed the judgment for plaintiff patent holders because the business plan was proffered to vary the terms of the parties' integrated agreement and was not admissible under the parol evidence rule. The judgments in favor of defendant manufacturers on the actions for violation of the Cartright Act and for wrongful termination of employment were affirmed.
Appellants, estate, executor, and the law firm representing them, challenged the decision from the Superior Court of San Mateo County (California) which denied appellant attorney fees for services rendered to the estate.
Appellants, estate, executor, and the law firm representing the estate, sought to have attorney's fees paid to appellant law firm for services rendered. Appellant executor was a Colorado resident and an out-of-state co-executor for a California estate. The probate judge refused to award the fees instead holding that appellant law firm had violated Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6125 due to their unauthorized practice of law because the law firm was a Colorado law firm that had not filed a pro hac vice request to practice in California for this issue. Appellants challenged the ruling. The court held that § 6125 does not apply to out-of-state residents or non-California clients. Appellant co-executor was a Colorado resident and had the right to seek help from the attorney of his choice. The court therefore reversed the trial court's ruling and ordered that appellants recover the statutory fees and extraordinary fees they were entitled to, as well as recovering the costs and fees of the appeal.
The trial court's denial of attorney's fees for appellant law firm and its finding that appellant engaged in the unauthorized practice of law was reversed with orders that appellant be paid what they were entitled to because the statute did not apply to non-resident clients and because people are entitled to the attorney of their choice.
