1-25 of 153 results

A WALK IN THE PARK LLC ET AL VS BMB

...the first for promissory fraud and the second for aiding and abetting the promissory fraud. Defendant BMB demurred, arguing among other things that the actions for promissory fraud were barred by the parol evidence rule. The court overruled the demurrer on December 8, 2011, and ordered BMB to answer. BMB filed its answer on December 30, 2011, and also filed a cross-complaint against defendant East West Bank. On ...

...for contractual and equitable indemnity. On April 2, 2012, Bank filed its demurrer to plaintiffs’ FAC. Bank demurs on the sole ground that both causes of action set forth in the FAC are barred by the parol evidence rule. Plaintiffs oppose the demurrer. Plaintiffs argue that this issue was decided by the court in BMB’s demurrer and that decision remains correct. Analysis: “We treat the demurrer as admitting al...

  • Hearing

    May 1, 2012

CYPRESS CREEK EPC, LLC VS. CANADIAN SOLAR

...these contract provisions are not susceptible to the interpretation that a payment bond premium is part of the “price” that plaintiff Cypress would pay for the subject solar modules A-2. Plaintiff’s Parol Evidence. Plaintiff Cypress offers evidence that there were discussions concerning what form of credit support plaintiff would need to provide in order to secure payment terms more favorable than the default ...

...limitation of liability clauses are strictly construed. (See, Philippine Airlines v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 234, 237.) C-2. Defendant’s Parol Evidence. Defendant Canadian offers parol evidence indicating that, during the negotiation of the master contract, plaintiff Cypress sought to negotiate the exemption of either delay damages or breach of warranty damages from the limitation of liabili...

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2019

SIMONE V. SIMONE FRUIT COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

...is “new matter,” and thus must be specially pleaded in the answer. It is no defense to a demurrer to the answer, as Simone Fruit Company argues, that a defendant must allege affirmative defenses or be barred from raising them at trial. Leave to amend is granted liberally, and if defendant discovers a new affirmative defense the answer can be amended. (Royal Thrift & Loan Co. v. County Escrow, Inc. (2004) ...

...Defense – Statute of Limitations Code of Civil Procedure section 458 provides that a party need not allege facts supporting a statute of limitations defense, but must only state “that the cause of action is barred by the provisions of Section (giving the number of the section and subdivision thereof, if it is so divided, relied upon).” Here, no specific code sections and subdivisions are alleged and the affirm...

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2018

  • Type

    06 Unlimited - Breach of Contract/Warranty

WOODWARD V. WILLIAMS

...expression of their agreement with respect to the terms included therein may not be contradicted by evidence of a prior agreement or of a contemporaneous oral agreement”].) This general objection fails. The parol evidence rule does not apply to exclude “evidence of the circumstances under which the agreement was made or to which it relates … or to explain an extrinsic ambiguity or otherwise interpret the terms of the a...

...1169, 1182.) As MP plaintiff alleges that he was fraudulently induced into signing the agreement, and some of MP’s evidence is directed to the circumstances under which the alleged agreement was made, the parol evidence rule does not bar admission of such evidence. Furthermore, this objection does not comply with CRC 3.1354(b), which provide that evidentiary objections must: (1) Identify the name of the document in w...

  • Hearing

    Apr 12, 2018

RICHARD BEST TRANSFER, INC. V. ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND COMPANY,ET AL.

...and thus must be specially pleaded in the answer. It is no defense to a demurrer to the answer, as Archer Daniels Midland Company (“ADM”) argues, that a defendant must allege affirmative defenses or be barred from raising them at trial. Leave to amend is granted liberally, and if ADM discovers a new affirmative defense, the answer can be amended. (Royal Thrift & Loan Co. v. County Escrow, Inc. (2004) 123 C...

...336, 337, 338, 339, and 340. Code of Civil Procedure section 458 provides that a party need not allege facts supporting a statute of limitations defense, but must only state “that the cause of action is barred by the provisions of Section (giving the number of the section and subdivision thereof, if it is so divided, relied upon).” The specific subdivisions must be alleged. The demurrer is sustained with l...

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2018

  • Type

    16 Unlimited - Fraud

LUCERNE VALLEY LLC VS SUNRISE FINANCIAL LLC ET AL

... Defendants are correct that a deed of trust securing real property must be in writing. (See Civ. Code, § 2922.) Here, plaintiff has alleged the existence of a written deed of trust. (See Compl., ¶ 8.) The parol evidence rule “provides that when parties enter an integrated written agreement, extrinsic evidence may not be relied upon to alter or add to the terms of the writing.[Fn. omitted.] [Citation.] ‘An integrated ...

...constituting a final expression of one or more terms of an agreement.’ [Citation.]” (Riverisland Cold Storage, Inc. v. Fresno-Madera Production Credit Ass'n (2013) 55 Cal.4th 1169, 1174.) “Although the parol evidence rule results in the exclusion of evidence, it is not a rule of evidence but one of substantive law. [Citation.] It is founded on the principle that when the parties put all the terms of their agreemen...

  • Hearing

    Mar 27, 2017

  • Type

    Other Real Property Rights Case (General Jurisdiction)

JONES VS. MONTAGE SYSTEMS

...contradicted by evidence of any prior agreement or of a contemporaneous oral agreement.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1856(a); Hayter Trucking, Inc. v. Shell Western E & P, Inc. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1, 13-14.) The “parol evidence rule” bars extrinsic evidence [oral or written] of prior or contemporaneous agreements to add to or modify the terms of an unambiguous “integrated” written instrument. (Masterson v. Sine (1968) 68 Cal...

...when Plaintiff became an employee of Connected on January 1, 2015, and therefore no longer legally operative. However, the Fourth COA is for breach of oral contact, not fraud, and thus, it appears that parol evidence rule is applicable. Further, regardless of whether the 2014 Employment Agreement concluded on December 31, 2014, the oral agreements made between June 11, 2011 and June 28, 2013 were superseded by the...

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2017

PIERCE O'DONNELL VS DAWN O'DONNELL

...action are barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, all six causes of action are barred by the parol evidence rule; agreements to answer for the debts of another are barred by the parol evidence rule; parties in family law proceedings cannot orally agree to a division of community property; the fourth cause of action fails because Dawn owes no fiduciary duty; and the fifth cause of action for...

...res judicata and collateral estoppel. But the parties have not litigated the issue of a separate agreement or misrepresentations leading to the 2/14/13 Stipulated Order, so these cause of action are not barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel. Judicial estoppel applies when “‘(1) the same party has taken two positions; (2) the positions were taken in judicial or quasi-judicial administrative proceedi...

  • Hearing

    Sep 2, 2015

AAA INSTITUTE VS DAVID MONTOYA ET AL

...Action (Reformation of Written Agreement). For the sake of judicial economy, the Court will permit the addition of this cause of action and consider whether this cause of action is sufficiently pled. The parol evidence rule does not bar a cause of action for reformation, but mutual mistake must be pled with particularity: Where, through mistake, the contract does not reflect the mutual intention of the parties, “su...

...the intent of the parties. (Hess v. Ford Motor Co. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 516, 524 [117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 220, 41 P.3d 46].) “In determining whether [there has been] a mutual mistake … , [the] court may consider parol evidence,” and such evidence may be introduced in the face of an integration clause. (Id. at p. 525.) “Extrinsic evidence is necessary because the court must divine the true intentions of the contracting parti...

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2019

  • Type

    Contractual Fraud (General Jurisdiction)

BETZ V. PROGRESSIVE LIGHTING & ENERGY SOLUTIONS, INC.

...the singular and sometimes in the plural. See paragraphs 17, 19, and 115.] PG&E argues that because the Master Services Agreement (“MSA”) contains an integration clause, it must be fully integrated, so parol evidence is inadmissible to alter or contradict the express written terms of the MSA. (CCP sec. 1856; EPA Real Estate Partnership v. Kang (1992) 12 Cal.App.4th 171, 175.) Furthermore, PG&E contends the MSA sup...

...applies, there is still a triable issue of fact as to whether the parol evidence rule bars or permits evidence of the LOI and the oral assignment of rebates from Menlo to Progressive. This is because the parol evidence rule only bars extrinsic evidence of a prior or contemporaneous agreement that contradicts the MSA. (CCP 1856 (a).) It does not bar evidence of consistent additional terms. (CCP 1856 (b).) Nor does it...

  • Hearing

    Oct 1, 2016

HANSEN TRUST V. TRI VALLEY ET AL.,

...side asks the court to find the language of the 1974 Grant Deed to be unambiguous, albeit by advancing conflicting interpretations. The issue is significant in that it determines the admissibility of parol evidence. The court is guided by these principles: "Where the meaning of the words used in a contract is disputed, the trial court must provisionally receive any proffered extrinsic evidence which is relevan...

...resolution of that conflict is a question of fact and must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence. Furthermore, when two equally plausible interpretations of the language of a contract may be made parol evidence is admissible to aid in interpreting the agreement, thereby presenting a question of fact which precludes summary judgment if the evidence is contradictory." (Wolf v. Superior Court (2004) 114 Cal.App...

  • Hearing

    Aug 22, 2011

  • Type

    Other Real Property

HASHTROUDI V. CALTROP CORPORATION

...from the matters alleged or are proper subjects of judicial notice. Hall v. Great W. Bank (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 713, 718 n.7. Defendant contends that a release bars all of Plaintiff’s claims and that the parol evidence rule bars any evidence of alleged representations made prior to the signing of the release. Plaintiff alleges Defendant fraudulently induced him to sign the release and related Stock Purchase Agreemen...

...that the agreements are therefore voidable. Agreements obtained by fraud may be rescinded. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1689. Parol evidence of fraudulent representations is admissible as an exception to the parol evidence rule to show that a contract was induced by fraud. Julius Castle Restaurant Inc. v. Payne (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1423, 1440. In light of this law and Plaintiff’s allegations, the court cannot conclude...

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2019

MAVERIDGE INTERNATIONAL BV VS B&H FLOWERS INC ET AL

...is based on the defective bulbs, it is duplicative of the implied warranty cause of action. 2) To the extent it is based on a price charged contrary to the alleged oral agreement, it is barred by the parol evidence rule as the Payment Agreement contains an integration clause. 3) To the extent it is based on Maveridge’s alleged failure to properly pursue remedies under the Payment Agreement, B&H does not say what...

...other reasons and the instant cause of action has the same defect. B&H contends that, in any event, the implied warranty and breach of contract causes of action are not duplicative. B&H argues that the parol evidence rule does not bar the contract claim regarding pricing because the Payment Agreement did not specify a per bulb price for 2008 shipments. B&H presents a declaration showing an e-mail that purports to ...

  • Hearing

    Apr 1, 2010

LANES END, LLC VS CLINTONBAILEY, APC

...offered to restore the benefits received; (5) Plaintiff cannot recover on its 3rd c/a for declaratory relief because Plaintiff agreed to pay the attorneys’ fees reflected in the Note; and (6) Plaintiff is barred by the doctrines of laches and estoppel from recovering on any of its claims. (The laches/estoppel argument is included in the MPA but is not included as an issue in the separate statement.) Defendant...

...confirms that Maker has consulted with independent counsel prior to executing this Note.” Defendants argue that Plaintiff is barred from contradicting that statement by the parol evidence rule. While the parol evidence rule may bar Plaintiff from contradicting ¶ 15 and that may pose problems at trial, it does not justify summary judgment/adjudication in Defendants’ favor at this time. First, there is no similar stat...

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2017

JANE PAK VS. OLD GRINGO INC

...by Wrongful Termination of Employment and Other Conduct Breach of Contract of Continued Employment Old Gringo raises the same arguments as to both of these causes of action. Old Gringo argues that the parol evidence rule precludes the introduction of extrinsic evidence regarding Plaintiff's "at will" employment and that these causes of action fail for "lack of proven damages." It is undisputed that from late 2012...

...application and Acknowledgement, Old Gringo, fails to establish that the parties' agreement to the evergreen clause is barred by the parol evidence rule [CCP § 1856]. To the extent Old Gringo argues that the parol evidence rule excludes any evidence of Plaintiff's "Actual Employment Contract" the court applies the analysis of Pacific Gas and Electric Company v. G.W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Company, Inc. (1968) 69 Cal.2...

  • Hearing

    Mar 22, 2018

  • Type

    Breach of Contract/Warranty

ROSA HERRERA VS FRANCISCO VIELMA

...defendant cannot tell what he or she is supposed to respond to. (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.). Where the dates alleged in the complaint show the action is barred by the statute of limitations, a general demurrer lies. (See Vaca v. Wachovia Mortg. Corp. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 737, 746.) However, “[a] demurrer based on a statute of limitations will not lie where...

... barred. In order for the bar ... to be raised by demurrer, the defect must clearly and affirmatively appear on the face of the complaint; it is not enough that the complaint shows that the action may be barred.” (Comm. for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara Cty. Bd. of Supervisors (2010) 48 Cal.4th 32, 42.) B. DISCUSSION 1. First Cause of Action—Constructive Trust “A constructive trust is an involuntary equi...

  • Hearing

    Jan 18, 2017

  • Type

    Other Real Property Rights Case (General Jurisdiction)

AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY VS ESTRADA, SYLVIA

...of the parol evidence rule: “Where the validity of the agreement is the fact in dispute, this section does not exclude evidence relevant to that issue.” This provision rests on the principle that the parol evidence rule, intended to protect the terms of a valid written contract, should not bar evidence challenging the validity of the agreement itself. “Evidence to prove that the instrument is void or voidable fo...

...in his individual or representative capacity.” (Cal. Evid. Code § 1220.) Here, Defendant Upshaw is offering Plaintiff’s own representative’s statement against it. Nor is the declaration barred by the parol evidence rule, which provides that the terms “set forth in a writing intended by the parties as a final expression of their agreement with respect to such terms as are included therein may not be contradicted ...

  • Hearing

    Jul 6, 2017

  • Type

    BREACH OF CONTRACT (Limited Jurisdiction)

VITASCAN PARTNERS I VS GE HEALTHCARE FINANCIAL SERVICES

...negating fraudulent intent). Since not initially raised in the motion, they have not been considered as a basis for granting the motion. (B) Plaintiffs? tort claims (4th & 5th causes of action) are barred by the economic loss rule. The motion is denied on this issue for defendant?s failure to sustain its burden of proof for purposes of this motion only. The court concedes that this is a close call, ...

...evidence, the ruling is the same. 2. Gerlach Declaration ? Sustained (parol evidence rule only). However, even considering all the evidence, the ruling is the same. 3. Parker Declaration ? Sustained (parol evidence rule only). However, even considering all the evidence, the ruling is the same. GECC has sustained its burden of producing admissible evidence on each element of its cause of action. Vitascan entere...

  • Hearing

    Mar 23, 2006

RODOLFO BARRIOS BENAVIDES ET AL. VS DAVID MENDEZ ET AL.

...[photographs of improvements made to the real property]. Defendants further challenge the Second Cause of Action for breach of contract by asserting that the cause is barred by the parol evidence rule. “The parol evidence rule is codified in Civil Code section 1625 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1856. (Citations.) It ‘generally prohibits the introduction of any extrinsic evidence, whether oral or written, to var...

...Thus, “the oral contract is barred by the Parol Evidence Rule … [and is] a complete defense to plaintiffs’ cause of action”. Motion, page 6:3-4; 7:21. Importantly, there is a fraud exception to the parol evidence rule. See, Riverisland Cold Storage, Inc. v. Fresno-Madera Production Credit Assn (2013) 55 C.4th 1169, 1171-1182. Defendants do not address the fraud exception in their motion and so, they have fai...

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2019

S&S HOMES OF THE CENTRAL COAST INC ET AL VS PACIFIC CAPITAL

...and 2009. (SAC, ¶ 112.) Bank argues that these allegations constitute either contemporaneous agreements to extend that would be barred by the parol evidence rule or subsequent agreements that would be barred by the statute of frauds. The SAC alleges that the course of conduct is not inconsistent with or contrary to the terms of the notes and none of the notes contains an integration clause that would prec...

...provide for renewal or extension: “All such parties agree that Lender may renew or extend (repeatedly and for any length of time) this loan ….” (E.g., SAC, exhibit 1, at p. 2 [General Provisions].) The parol evidence rule, which bars only contradictory collateral oral agreements, has no application with respect to terms anticipated but not expressed in the written agreement. (See Masterson v. Sine (1968) 68 Cal. 2...

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2012

SHAN WEY VS MATTHEW GILLISPIE

...and gross negligence. (Complaint, �� 25, 35, 41, 42.) �A demurrer based on an affirmative defense cannot properly be sustained where the action might be barred by the defense, but is not necessarily barred. [Citation.] Nor is a demurrer the appropriate procedure for determining the truth of disputed facts or what inferences should be drawn where competing inferences are possible.� (CrossTalk Productions...

...been breached are not in the express contract and the parol evidence rule prevents contradictory oral agreements. Plaintiff argues that the oral agreements are subsequent to the written agreement and the parol evidence rule does not apply. Plaintiff alleges breach of the contract by failing to transport the horses in a safe manner, transporting an eighth horse, and not following the agreed upon route. (Complaint, �...

  • Hearing

    Sep 8, 2014

DREAMCATCHERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. VS. HEIMLICH

...Defendants argue that because the parties’ contract contained an integration clause, because the lease contained an integration clause it must have been fully integrated as a matter of law, so that under the parol evidence rule, oral evidence is not admissible to show prior oral promises predating the contract. This argument fails for at least two related reasons. First, the mere fact that a contract contains an integra...

...of Good Faith and Fair Dealing 1. Parol Evidence Rule OVERRULED on this ground. Defendants again argue that the integration clause establishes that the written contract is fully integrated so that the parol evidence rule bars any evidence of prior oral terms. This argument fails as explained above in section B. 2. Misjoinder of Parties OVERRULED on this ground. Defendants argue that there has been a misjoinder of...

  • Hearing

    Nov 28, 2018

DEXTER STREET LIMITED PARTNERSHIP VS. GREAT AMERICAN SAVINGS BANK

...the parties entered into the contract, the object, nature and subject matter of the contract, and the subsequent conduct of the parties. Morey v. Vannucci (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 904, 912 (Morey). The Parol Evidence Rule bars the admission of extrinsic evidence, whether oral or written, to vary, alter, or add to the terms of an integrated agreement. The rule is codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 1856, wh...

...to explain an extrinsic ambiguity or otherwise interpret the terms of the agreement ..." As the Court of Appeal noted in Hayter Trucking, Inc. v. Shell W. E&P, Inc., 18 Cal.App.4th 1, 15 (1993): "The parol evidence rule is not merely a rule of evidence concerned with the method of proving an agreement. Rather, it is a principle of substantive law. The rule derives from the concept of an integrated contract. When...

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2018

  • Type

    Breach of Contract/Warranty

DRISCOLL & COMPANY, INC. VS. ANGELA C. DRISCOLL, TRUSTEE OF THE ELOISE M. DRISCOLL TRUST, DATED JANUARY 16, 2014

...argument regarding ripeness is moot. Further, Defendant has not argued the three-pronged parol evidence analysis and has not demonstrated on this pleadings motion that the oral agreement is barred by the parol evidence rule. See Gerdlund v. Electric Dispensers Int'l (1987) 190 CA3d 263, 270; Banco Do Brasil, S.A. v. Latian, Inc. (1991) 234 CA3d 973, 1001. 2. Services Rendered and Materials Supplied and Restitution c...

  • Hearing

    May 15, 2017

VERDI, ALFRED J. VS. KASBARIAN, HRANDT

...the Settlement Agreement contain any contingency that Plaintiff was to receive payment out of Bartkus settlement proceeds before Plaintiff would be obligated to make payments in the instant case. The “parol evidence rule” bars extrinsic evidence (oral or written) of prior or contemporaneous agreements to add to or modify the terms of an unambiguous “integrated” written instrument. (Pacific State Bank v. Greene (2...

...any prior agreement or of a contemporaneous oral agreement.” (CCP § 1856(a).) Here, the Settlement Agreement is fully integrated by virtue of paragraph 5 of the Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, the parol evidence rule bars Plaintiff from introducing evidence of other agreed upon terms that are not in the Settlement Agreement. Plaintiff's reliance on Alling v. Universal Manufacturing Corporation (1992) 5 Cal.A...

  • Hearing

    Jul 12, 2017

  • Type

    BREACH CONTRACT (Limited Jurisdiction)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7     last » 

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