The court reversed the awards of summary adjudication

Plaintiff subcontractor filed a suit alleging several causes of actions against defendants, a City, a general contractor, and the company that issued a surety bond, including enforcement of a stop notice and a cause of action on the surety bond. The Superior Court of Sacramento County (California) granted summary adjudication in favor of the subcontractor. The trial court also awarded statutory penalties. Defendants appealed.

The subcontractor sought to recover money owed it on a contract under which it supplied equipment for a public works project. Defendants claimed that the subcontractor waived its mechanic's lien rights up through a date when the funds should have been paid. The trial court determined that the subcontractor's conditional waiver and release of its mechanic's lien rights under Cal. Civ. Code § 3262(d)(1) released lien rights only to the extent it received payment and not up through the date stated on the release. Visit the lawyer to know about san diego employment law.

On appeal, the court held that the trial court's interpretation of the lien release statute was incorrect. Pursuant to § 3262(d)(1), the legislature crafted a release that waived mechanic's lien rights, bond rights, and stop notice rights for services rendered and materials provided up to the date stated on the receipt, even if those services and materials were not compensated by the progress payment. As for the statutory penalties, the court held that the prompt payment statutes applied, but were not triggered until the date of the first progress payment the general contractor received from the City after the subcontractor became a subcontractor.

The court reversed the awards of summary adjudication granted on the subcontractor's cause of action for enforcement of a stop notice and on its cause of action on the surety bond. The court also reversed and remanded the award of statutory penalties. However, the court affirmed that portion of the judgment awarding damages for breach of a joint check agreement and dismissing the general contractor's cross-complaint.

Appellant lawyer sought review of a judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County in favor of respondent partners. The lawyer had brought an action against the partners for accounting and for a declaratory judgment that the lawyer was a member of the partnership. The partners filed a cross-complaint for accounting and for the reasonable rental value of an office and facilities.

The lawyer brought an action against the partners for accounting and for a declaratory judgment that the lawyer was a member of the partnership. The partners filed a cross-complaint for accounting and for the reasonable rental value of an office and facilities. The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the partners. On appeal, the lawyer contended that the trial court erred in finding that he was not a partner. The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The court held that: (1) irrespective of whether the trial court erred in finding that the lawyer was not a partner, the additional findings supported the judgment insofar as it determined that the lawyer was not entitled to additional compensation; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the finding as to the amount due under the cross-complaint; (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the lawyer's motion to amend his pleadings because it did not appear that the motion was based upon any facts that were not known to the lawyer for a considerable time prior to the time the motion was made.

The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in favor of the partners in the lawyer's action against the partners for an accounting and for a declaratory judgment that the lawyer was a member of the partnership.

I'm Anne Tyner. I provide guest post service