Procedural Posture

Procedural Posture

Defendant professional sports league appealed an order of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, California, granting a new trial on the ground of juror misconduct following a jury trial in which the jury returned a verdict in favor of the league on plaintiff sports franchise's claims involving their move to another city.

Overview

The league argued that the order granting a new trial was deficient under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 657 because it failed to specify the reasons for granting a new trial. According to the league, this deficiency required the instant court to apply a less deferential standard of review in evaluating the order. The instant court concluded that neither the conflicting evidence of juror misconduct nor any asserted instructional error justified a new trial. The order failed to comply with § 657 because it did not adequately specify the trial court's reason or reasons for granting the new trial upon each ground stated. The specification of reasons merely restated the ground on which the order was based. The failure to render an adequate specification of reasons rendered the order defective, but not void. The instant court was required to independently review whether a new trial was warranted on the ground of juror misconduct or any other ground raised by the motion. On the basis of that independent review, the instant court concluded that reversal was required, as neither juror misconduct nor instructional error materially affected the franchise's substantial rights.

Outcome: ada attorney

The order granting a new trial was reversed. The trial court was directed to enter judgment in accordance with the jury verdict. In all other respects, the judgment was affirmed. The league was awarded its costs on appeal.

Procedural Posture

Plaintiff insurer challenged an order from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) that granted defendants, principal and agents, attorney fees, under Cal. Civ. Code § 3318, after a nonjury trial in which the trial court decided against plaintiff in its suit for breach of warranty of authority when defendant principal refused to sign a settlement agreed to by plaintiff and defendant agents.

Overview

Plaintiff insurer attempted to settle a dispute with defendant principal based upon representations by defendant agents that they had authority to settle. When defendant principal failed to sign the settlement agreement, plaintiff filed suit against defendants, principal and agents, for breach of warranty of authority and for attorney fees under Cal. Civ. Code § 3318. The trial court found against plaintiff on its claim and awarded defendants attorney fees under § 3318. The appellate court reversed the attorney fees award. The express language of § 3318 in actions for breach of warranty of authority claims entitled only successful plaintiffs to attorney fees. The appellate court rejected defendants' argument for a broader principle of reciprocity like that found in Cal. Civ. Code § 1717, because § 1717 was confined to actions on contracts which provided only one side to the contract an award of attorney fees. A breach of warranty of authority claim was not an action on a contract. Finding it against the public policy underlying § 3318, the appellate court also refused to superimpose a judicially manufactured principle of reciprocity on § 3318 that called for one-sided fee shifting.

Outcome

The court reversed the order that granted defendants, principal and agents, attorney fees upon defeating plaintiff insurer's claim for breach of warranty of authority because the trial court erred when it reached beyond existing precedent to grant the successful defendants attorney fees when the civil code statute expressly permitted such an award to successful plaintiffs, only, on a breach of warranty of authority claim.