Grant as to the first cause of action for judicial enforcement of unilateral rescission under Civ. Code § 1689(b)(4), and as to Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice. Deny as to remaining causes of action. Defendant’s evidentiary objections 11-14, 17-22, and 31-32 are overruled; the remaining objections are not material to resolution of the motion.
This is the second motion for summary adjudication brought by Plaintiff Table Rock. The last motion was addressed to the First Amended Complaint, and specifically to the first cause of action for breach of contract. The Court denied that motion. This motion is addressed to the first three causes in the Second Amended Complaint for: (1) judicial enforcement of unilateral rescission under Civ. Code § 1689(b)(4); (2) money had and received; and (3) unjust enrichment. The facts at issue in the Second Amended Complaint do not differ from those at issue in the prior complaint. As the Court explained in its last order denying summary adjudicatio
Hearing Date
September 08, 2021
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Grant as to the first cause of action for judicial enforcement of unilateral rescission under Civ. Code § 1689(b)(4), and as to Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice. Deny as to remaining causes of action. Defendant’s evidentiary objections 11-14, 17-22, and 31-32 are overruled; the remaining objections are not material to resolution of the motion.
This is the second motion for summary adjudication brought by Plaintiff Table Rock. The last motion was addressed to the First Amended Complaint, and specifically to the first cause of action for breach of contract. The Court denied that motion. This motion is addressed to the first three causes in the Second Amended Complaint for: (1) judicial enforcement of unilateral rescission under Civ. Code § 1689(b)(4); (2) money had and received; and (3) unjust enrichment. The facts at issue in the Second Amended Complaint do not differ from those at issue in the prior complaint. As the Court explained in its last order denying summary adjudicatio