Gagen, McCoy, McMahon, Koss, Markowitz & Fanucci
  • Home
  • About
  • Attorneys
    • Sumita Bhandari
    • Stephen T. Buehl
    • Rachel Margolis Chapman
    • C. Joseph Doherty III
    • Armand M. Estrada
    • Robert M. Fanucci
    • William E. Gagen Jr.
    • Barbara Duval Jewell
    • Charles A. Koss
    • Michael J. Markowitz
    • Aileen Rodriguez Mazanetz
    • Gregory L. McCoy
    • Daniel A. Muller
    • Sarah S. Nix
    • Elizabeth R. Weiss
  • Practice Areas
    • Business And Contract Law
    • Criminal Defense
    • Education Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • Land Use And Real Estate
    • Litigation
    • Tax Law
    • Trusts And Estate Planning
    • Winery And Vineyard Law
  • Developments of Interest
  • Blog
  • Contact
Select Page
New Cases of Interest – November 10, 2020
  1. Home
  2.  » 
  3. Developments of Interest
  4.  » New Cases of Interest – November 10, 2020

Caliber Paving Company, Inc. v. Rexford Industrial Realty & Management, Inc.(2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 175.

A subcontractor sued a general contractor for breach of contract and also sued the owner of the property for intentional interference with the contract after the subcontractor was released after a scheduling dispute. After the owner was dismissed by the trial court, the court of appeal reversed and sent the case back to the trial court with instructions that a party who is not a party to a contract is not immune from liability for intentional interference with the contract because that party does have an economic or social interest in the contract. Here the subcontractor had raised a triable issue as to whether the owner had interfered with the contract because allegedly the owner’s representative had directed the general contractor to kick the subcontractor off the job and hire somebody else. Although this was double hearsay, it was admissible because the statement of the owner was a statement of a party opponent and the statement of the property owner’s representative was inconsistent with the declaration he provided.

Marshall v. Webster (2020) 54 Cal.App.275. This was a defamation case and a SLAPP motion. The motion was granted as filed by the defendant and the plaintiff thereafter appealed, but the court found that the appeal was untimely because it was not filed until more than 60 days after the date when the order granting the motion was filed and the clerk served a signed, file-endorsed copy of the ruling. The appeal deadline was not extended by plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration because the anti-SLAPP order was a judgment from which no valid judgment for reconsideration could lie.

Related Attorney(s):
Gregory L. McCoy

Practice Areas

  • Business And Contract Law
  • Criminal Defense
    • Drunk Driving Defense
    • Expungement
    • Juvenile Law
    • Sex Crimes
    • Violent Crimes
  • Education Law
  • Intellectual Property
  • Land Use And Real Estate
  • Litigation
  • Tax Law
  • Trusts And Estate Planning
    • Advance Health Care Directives
    • Financial Powers Of Attorney
    • Forms Of Property Ownership Between Spouses
      • Joint Tenancy Vs Community Property
      • Separate Property And Community Property
      • The Relationship Between Characterization Of Property, Marital Agreements And Estate Planning
      • Ways To Hold Title For Married Couples In California
    • Probate Procedures And Duties Of A Personal Representative
    • Revocable And Irrevocable Trusts
      • Guide For Transfer Of Assets To A Revocable Living Trust
      • Generation Skipping Transfer Tax Trusts (Dynasty Trusts)
      • Special Needs Trusts
      • The Revocable Living Trust
      • Trust Administration
    • Wills
  • Winery And Vineyard Law

Make An Appointment

To Speak With One Our Attorneys

Contact us today and find out how Gagen, McCoy, McMahon, Koss, Markowitz & Fanucci can assist you.

Call Us Now For Additional Information

To schedule an initial consultation, please call us at 925-837-0585. Our firm boasts decades of experience, and we are prepared to begin working for you.

The Law Offices Of Gagen, McCoy, McMahon, Koss, Markowitz & Fanucci 630 San Ramon Valley Blvd Suite 100 Danville, CA 94526

DANVILLE OFFICE

630 San Ramon Valley Blvd
Suite 100
Danville, CA 94526

Phone: 925-837-0585
Fax: 925-838-5985

Map & Directions
The Law Offices of Gagen, McCoy, McMahon, Koss, Markowitz & Fanucci The Offices at Stonebridge 1030 Main Street, Suite 212 St. Helena, CA 94574

ST. HELENA OFFICE

The Offices at Stonebridge
1030 Main Street, Suite 212
St. Helena, CA 94574

Phone: 707-963-0909
Fax: 707-963-5527

Map & Directions
Review Us
  • Follow
  • Follow

© 2021 Gagen, McCoy, McMahon, Koss, Markowitz & Fanucci. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Business Development Solutions by FindLaw, part of Thomson Reuters