Enforcing Third Party Beneficiary Breach of Contract Claims

Useful Rulings on Breach of Contract – Third Party Beneficiary

Recent Rulings on Breach of Contract – Third Party Beneficiary

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

HRG HRG is the successor-in-interest to the Owner of the real property (i.e., the ground lessor), an express third-party beneficiary of the Contract.

  • Hearing

LAGUNA GREENBELT INC VS. COUNTY OF ORANGE

The County argues (1) the death of the project has mooted this claim, £ind (2) Heritage Fields fails to allege facts demonstrating it is a third party beneficiary. The Court agrees. A. Mootness Heritage Fields' breach of contract claim fails for the same reasons that Irvine's breach of contract claim fails - now that the project is dead, there is no breach and no deimages.

  • Hearing

COLOREDGE, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, VS EDIE GELARDI, AN INDIVIDUAL,, ET AL.

Final Film filed an Answer and Cross-Complaint (“FFXC”) on March 15, 2019, where Final Film Cross-Complained against Plaintiff in three causes of action sounding in certain 2018 transactions, alleging (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Common Account: Open Book Account; and (3) Common Count: Account Stated. Gelardi filed a Cross-Complaint on June 19, 2019, alleging eleven causes of action sounding in (1) Failure to Pay Equal Pay; (2) Violation of Lab. Code §1197.5; (3) Breach of Contract; (4) Violation of Lab.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SBH CAMDEN PROPERTIES, L.P. V. MIRASSOU, ET AL.

SBH contends that Murphy was acting as an agent for both Taco Bell and Mirassou, and that Taco Bell was an intended third party beneficiary of the executed right of first refusal since Taco Bell would benefit by obtaining a drive-thru window on the project. (See SAC, ¶¶ 18-19.) As an intended third party beneficiary, SBH asserts that Taco Bell owed SBH a duty to disclose the existence of Taco Bell’s superior right of first refusal. (See SAC, ¶ 19.)

  • Hearing

WARLIN V. SERVICE CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL, INC.

The Court finds the allegations sufficient to allege that Janice is a third party beneficiary of the contract and to state a claim for breach of contract. Defendants’ demurrer is overruled as to Janice. However, Plaintiffs have failed to cite authority where relatives were found to be third-party beneficiaries of a contract under facts analogous to this, particularly where there are other parties properly bringing a breach of contract action.

  • Hearing

ADVANCED ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGIES INC VS. TROON ENTERPRISES

The demurrer to the first cause of action for breach of contract is sustained with leave to amend. The elements for breach of contract are: "(1) existence of the contract; (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) defendant's breach; and (4) damages to plaintiff as a result of the breach." CDF Firefighters v. Maldonado (2008) 158 Cal. App. 4th 1226, 1239.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ADVANCED ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGIES INC VS. TROON ENTERPRISES

The demurrer to the first cause of action for breach of contract is sustained with leave to amend. The elements for breach of contract are: "(1) existence of the contract; (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) defendant's breach; and (4) damages to plaintiff as a result of the breach." CDF Firefighters v. Maldonado (2008) 158 Cal. App. 4th 1226, 1239.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ADVANCED ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGIES INC VS. TROON ENTERPRISES

The demurrer to the first cause of action for breach of contract is sustained with leave to amend. The elements for breach of contract are: "(1) existence of the contract; (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) defendant's breach; and (4) damages to plaintiff as a result of the breach." CDF Firefighters v. Maldonado (2008) 158 Cal. App. 4th 1226, 1239.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

DHANANJAY KULKARNI, AN INDIVIDUAL VS KENNARD DEVELOPMENT GROUP, DBA KDG CONSTRUCTION CONSULTING, A CORPORATION, ET AL.

Therefore, Parsons contends that it has the right to enforce the arbitration agreement as a third-party beneficiary. Additionally, Parsons invokes the doctrine of equitable estoppel in support of its position that Plaintiff’s claims against it are also subject to arbitration.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

VOIT VENTURES INC VS FAMILY HEALTH CENTERS OF SAN DIEGO INC

With respect to count 1, sufficient facts have been pled as to the element of breach under a third party beneficiary theory. (Complaints at ¶¶ 7, 13, 14, 16.) A person seeking to enforce a contract as a third party beneficiary "must plead a contract which was made expressly for his benefit and one in which it clearly appears that he was a beneficiary[.]" Luis v. Orcutt Town Water Co. (1962) 204 Cal.App.2d 433, 441.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

VOIT VENTURES INC VS FAMILY HEALTH CENTERS OF SAN DIEGO INC

With respect to count 1, sufficient facts have been pled as to the element of breach under a third party beneficiary theory. (Complaints at ¶¶ 7, 13, 14, 16.) A person seeking to enforce a contract as a third party beneficiary "must plead a contract which was made expressly for his benefit and one in which it clearly appears that he was a beneficiary[.]" Luis v. Orcutt Town Water Co. (1962) 204 Cal.App.2d 433, 441.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ST. GEORGE WAREHOUSING & TRUCKING CO. OF CALIFORNIA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS JOSE CARDENAS, ET AL.

Greenline does not become a third party beneficiary with standing to enforce the Transportation Agreement and related addenda by mere virtue of this conclusory allegation. C. Breach of Contract Claim against AZ Plaintiffs argue that the Lincoln Defendants’ breach of contract claim fails as against AZ because AZ is not a signatory to the Transportation Agreement and related addenda. (See Clemens v.

  • Hearing

SOUDER VS. O'CONNOR LAGUNA HILLS MORTUARY

Third cause of action for breach of contract. The third cause of action is for breach of contract, and plaintiffs allege that, between February 2014 and September 2014, decedent’s widow entered into a contract with defendant to transfer the decedent’s remains to the cemetery. (Complaint, ¶ 25.) They allege that they are third party beneficiaries to the contract, which defendant breached by not transferring the remains. (Complaint, ¶ 26.)

  • Hearing

A1A HOME, LLC VS. VILLALOBOS

Plaintiff fails to properly allege any facts that it is a third party beneficiary to the promissory note made by Villalobos to the senior lienholder. Plaintiff fails to point to any language in the promissory note that makes it an intended beneficiary. Additionally, permitting recovery on such a theory runs afoul of the anti-deficiency judgment statute as stated above.

  • Hearing

PELAYO V. UTILITY PARTNERS OF AMERICA, LLC

In their complaint, plaintiffs allege causes of action for: (1) Failure to Pay Wages and Overtime; (2) Failure to Pay Prevailing Wages; (3) Failure to Timely Pay Wages Due at Separation; (4) Failure to Pay for Missed Meal and Rest Breaks; (5) Recovery under Statutory Payment Bonds; (6) Breach of Contract Third Party Beneficiary; (7) Enforcement of Stop Notices (against City); (8) Recovery under Stop Notice Release Bonds; and (9) Unfair Competition.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Gary Nadler via Zoom

  • County

    Sonoma County, CA

DF & RW, INC., DBA F& W FOODSERVICES VS PHILIP WEINBERGER, ET AL.

On June 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed its complaint for Breach of Contract/Alter Ego Liability, Common Count: Goods Sold and Delivered, Account Stated, Open Book Account, Reasonable Value for Goods and Services Delivered, Breach of Third Party Beneficiary Contract, Breach of Contract—Promissory Estoppel, Breach of Contract, and Reasonable Value. On July 29, 2019, Plaintiff dismissed Foothill Legacy, LLC.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

RANCHO CIENEGA, LLC, ET AL. VS LEVI ESTATES, LLC,, ET AL.

(“TCRE”) filed this action against Defendants Levi Estates, LLC (“Levi Estates”) and Eli Levi (“Levi”) (jointly, “Defendants”) for breach of contract, fraudulent deceit, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contractthird party beneficiary, and specific performance. This action arises out of a disputed transaction for the purchase of the real property located at 14929 Hawthorne Blvd., Lawndale, California 90260 (the “Property”).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

KING VS AMERICAN MOTORHEAD INC

The Kramer court offered the following analysis: Here, Plaintiffs' claims are premised on California consumer law, unfair competition, false advertising, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and breach of contract. In order for Toyota's equitable estoppel argument to succeed, Plaintiffs' claims themselves must intimately rely on the existence of the Purchase Agreements, not merely reference them.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

JOSEPH BARKETT VS CAMERON WEISS, ET AL.

There are six theories identified by caselaw which may bind a non-signatory to arbitrate: (a) incorporation by reference; (b) assumption; (c) agency; (d) veil-piercing or alter ego; (e) estoppel; and (f) third-party beneficiary. (Suh v. Superior Court (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1504, 1513.) California courts recognize that a nonsignatory sued as an agent of a signatory may enforce an arbitration agreement. (Rowe v.

  • Hearing

BENAVIDEZ VS DESERT OASIS HOLDINGS LP HEARING RE: DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT OF MARISELA BENAVIDEZ BY DESERT OASIS HOLDINGS LP

As to the 1st (breach of warranty of habitability Civil Code § 1941.1), 3d (breach of warranty of habitability Civil Code § 1942.4), 9th (breach of contract), 10th (breach of quiet enjoyment), and 11th (UCL) causes of action, the demurrer is sustained without leave to amend only as to the minor Plaintiffs, who lack standing to pursue those causes of action. The demurrer to those causes of action is overruled as they relate to Plaintiffs Manuel Dominguez and Marisella Benavidez.

  • Hearing

KING VS AMERICAN MOTORHEAD INC

The Kramer court offered the following analysis: Here, Plaintiffs' claims are premised on California consumer law, unfair competition, false advertising, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and breach of contract. In order for Toyota's equitable estoppel argument to succeed, Plaintiffs' claims themselves must intimately rely on the existence of the Purchase Agreements, not merely reference them.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

MELVIN VS BRAYSHAW HEARING RE: DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF GLENN MELVIN BY GLEN BRAYSHAW, MICHAEL NYHUIS, SEAN RUNNELS, VANGUARD LEISURE PROPERTIES REAL, VLP MANAGEMENT LTD

Restitution may be awarded in lieu of breach of contract damages when the parties had an express contract, but it was procured by fraud. (McBride, supra, at 387.) This is the theory under which Plaintiffs believe they are entitled to restitution. However, as discussed above, the FAC as currently pled does not sufficiently state a cause of action for fraud.

  • Hearing

SHEHEDA ABUSAMAHA VS AAA AUTO CLUB ENTERPRISES, ET AL.

The court will give plaintiff one last chance to correctly allege a breach of contract claim against AAA by attaching the contract or alleging the verbatim terms which he claims were breached. As mentioned above, because a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a cause of action for breach of contract, Plaintiff is required to set forth the terms of the contract or attach a copy of the contract where the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is implied by law.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MANZANO, ET AL. V. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

As Semeil is not a borrower under the loan and he is not an intended third party beneficiary, he has no standing in this action to enforce any agreement. Because there appears to be no reasonable possibility the complaint can be amended to cure this defect, the demurrer is sustained without leave to amend. (See Roman, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at p. 322.) 4.

  • Hearing

STEVEN DUNNER VS STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

party beneficiary theory.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 25     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.