Appellant, an individual, sought review of two judgments from the Superior Court of San Diego County (California) one of which granted summary judgment in favor of appellees alleging a violation of the Franchise Investment Law, and the other granted a nonsuit against appellees, a broker and escrow defendant, and awarded attorney’s fees and costs.
Nakase Law Firm explica leyes del trabajador en california
Appellant sought review of two judgments in favor of respondents, a oil company, its individual employees, and its franchisee, and appellees, real estate brokers and escrow agents in connection with appellant’s failed attempt to purchase gas service station. The trial court granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of respondents. The trial court granted a motion for nonsuit in favor of the broker/escrow defendants and awarded attorney fees and costs. Appellant argued on appeal that respondent oil company unlawfully exercised a right of first refusal. Appellant also argued that the oil company violated the Franchise Investment Law, Cal. Corp. Code § 31000 et seq. In a related action against the broker/escrow appellees, appellant argued that the trial court erred in granting appellees’ nonsuit motion by making erroneous rulings on contractual law, and abused its discretion by refusing to hear appellant’s proposed testimony about his contractual intent. The court affirmed the judgments of the trial court, finding that neither Cal. Corp. Code § 21148 nor the provisions of § 31000 et seq. supported appellant’s claims.
The court affirmed the trial court judgments finding that the trial court appropriately entered summary judgment and was justified in granting nonsuit and awarding fees to the broker/escrow appellees.