Plaintiff and defendant partner formed a partnership

Plaintiff partner challenged the judgment of the Superior Court of Modoc County (California), which found in favor of defendants, a partner, a bank, and the bank's principals, with respect to the plaintiff's action to recover the money of the partnership allegedly unlawfully and fraudulently appropriated. The court also found in favor of the bank with respect to the bank's action to recover money from the partnership that was due on a note.

Plaintiff and defendant partner formed a partnership in which the plaintiff gave the defendant partner his power of attorney to sign, seal, execute, and deliver bills of sale, mortgages, and other instruments in writing as were necessary to properly carry on the business. Defendant’s partner had existing personal debts, which plaintiff agreed to roll into the partnership debt. Further, the bank agreed to release defendant partner's debt, taking the partnership as sole debtor. Visit one of the best Los Angeles employment attorneys who know all about Los Angeles laws.

When the partnership needed more funds that the bank was allowed to lend, some notes were placed in the names of the individual partners. Plaintiff sought recovery of monies under the partnership, which did not fare well, and the bank sought the balance due on a note. The trial court found in favor of defendants. The court affirmed and held that, although plaintiff had sound arguments, the evidence also supported the judgment given, and the court was bound to uphold the trial court's findings. The court also held that the fact that the bank loaned beyond its statutory limit did not absolve the partners, as debtors, nor did it raise any presumptions against the truth of the testimony given.

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Plaintiff uninsured motorist filed a class action against defendants, an insurance carrier and other parties, including a collection agency. The Los Angeles County Superior Court, California, granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of all defendants. The motorist appealed. While the action was pending, the carrier filed a special motion to strike under Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, but the motion was denied; the carrier appealed from that order.

The motorist, who had rear-ended an insured driver, claimed that defendants engaged in unfair practices in violation of Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200. His allegations centered on the collection agency's efforts to collect monies allegedly owed to insurers. The court concluded that the motorist could not allege facts that constituted an unfair practice under § 17200 because he could not plead facts showing that defendants' business practices were unfair. The motorist did not dispute that he was at fault in the accident and that he was uninsured. Assuming for purposes of discussion that the complaint alleged a valid class action, the class could not include persons who were not liable, and from whom the collection agency sought to collect monies that were not actually owed. Those persons were in a different situation than the motorist, and for that reason could not be members of his class. In light of that fact, it could not be said that the motorist was injured by the defendants' practices, much less that his injury was substantial. Because the motorist was liable for the damages arising from the accident, it did not violate his rights to attempt to collect those damages.

The order denying the carrier's motion to strike the complaint under § 425.16 was affirmed for reasons stated in the unpublished portion of the opinion. The judgment in favor of defendants was also affirmed.