Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

RAM PIZZA, INC. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, E060399. (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals of California Number: incaco20140313049 Visitors: 5
Filed: Mar. 12, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 12, 2014
Summary: NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. OPINION KING, J. In this matter we have reviewed the petition and the response filed by real parties in interest. We have determined that resolution of the
More

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

OPINION

KING, J.

In this matter we have reviewed the petition and the response filed by real parties in interest. We have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of settled principles of law, and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.) We will grant the petition in part and deny in part.

DISCUSSION

With respect to petitioners' cause of action for breach of contract, real parties relied on the fact that petitioners never presented a formal request for approval of the transfer of the franchises and the required information about the proposed transferee. However, petitioners' assertion that real parties' representative clearly informed petitioners that the proposed transferee would not be approved could, on a persuasive and detailed evidentiary showing, be found to excuse petitioners' failure to perform that condition or obligation. Hence, in our view this cause of action should have been allowed to proceed to trial.

DISPOSITION

Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue, directing the superior court of Riverside County to vacate its order granting summary adjudication of the breach of contract claim, and to enter a new order denying real parties' motion in that respect. In all other respects the petition is denied.

Petitioners are directed to prepare and have the peremptory writ of mandate issued, copies served, and the original filed with the clerk of this court, together with proof of service on all parties. In the interests of justice, the parties shall bear their own costs.

RICHLI, Acting P. J. and MILLER, J., concurs.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer