Search anything: case name, case number, motion type, judge, or party
William D CLASTER
(Subscribe to View)
Track Rulings In Case
April 25, 2026
Orange County, CA
Mar 01, 2019
Mar 02, 2018
Feb 02, 2018
Price Vs The City Of Anaheim
T-12 Three, Llc Vs. Turner Construction Company
Shindler Vs. Prime Healthcare Anaheim, Llc
Lake Forest Community Association Vs. Pacific Aquascape International, Inc
Mateos Vs. Iec Corporation Which Will Do Business In California As International Education Corporation
Delia Vs. The Irvine Company, Llc
Aranda Vs. Tekworks, Inc.
Cardoso Vs. Data Clean Corporation
Pitre Vs. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Brock Vs. Golden Rain Foundation
On March 1, 2019 the Court issued its ruling regarding the interpretation of Section 13.2(f) of the parties’ lease agreement. At the conclusion of oral argument relating to that issue, the Court allowed the parties the opportunity to brief two additional questions: (1) whether under the terms of the lease Defendant SARVS is entitled to be compensated for the potential loss of goodwill under Section 13.2(f), and (2) whether the calculation of the fair market value of the 2.9 acres in question should take into consideration the existence of the SCE-SARVS lease pertaining to that property. With respect to the first question, the Court concludes that Section 13.2(f) does not preclude SARVS from attempting to obtain compensation for any alleged loss of goodwill. Notably, nowhere in that section is there any reference to goodwill or any statement to the effect that any potential item of compensation not explicitly referenced therein is considered waived. Given that CCP § 1263.51........
You can see and manage all of your alerts under Settings -> Alerts
Add to your subscription and access more dockets and more documents!
Your subscription was successfully upgraded
Please wait a moment while we load this page.