Procedural Posture

In a tort suit, plaintiff consumer appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, sustaining demurrers without leave to amend, in favor of defendant drug distributors.

Overview

The consumer, a strict ethical vegan, alleged he suffered serious emotional, and subsequent physical, injuries when he discovered a tuberculosis (TB) test he had submitted to contained animal products. The consumer submitted to the test as a condition of his employment with a medical facility. The consumer alleged the distributors of the TB test negligently misrepresented that the test did not contain animal products. The court dismissed his complaint, finding the consumer had not stated a cause of action for negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, or negligent misrepresentation. As a matter of law, the distributors owed no duty to warn the consumer that the test contained animal products.

Outcome

The judgment was affirmed. The parties were represented by California business and employment attorney.

Procedural Posture

Plaintiff unincorporated association sued defendant country club for breach of contract, specific performance, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief for claims arising out of a right of first offer contained in the club’s governing regulations. The Orange County Superior Court, California, granted the club’s motion for summary judgment. The association appealed, but did not challenge summary adjudication of its injunctive relief claim.

Overview

The association’s membership consisted entirely of members of the club. The club’s governing regulations contained a right of first offer, which provided that in the event the owner desired to offer part or all of its legal interest in the club for sale, the owner was obligated to first extend the opportunity to purchase such interest in the club to any organization then in existence composed solely of members or an organization of which at least 51 percent of the members or shareholders were then members of the club. In October 1999, the corporate owner entered into an agreement to sell its stock to a third party. The association claimed this agreement triggered the club’s obligations under the right of first offer. However, the association did not exist as of October 1999. The instant court concluded that the trial court correctly construed the contract as extending the right of first offer only to a member organization in existence. Because neither the association nor any member organization, as referred to in the governing regulations, existed as of the date of the agreement to sell the owner’s stock, the club had no obligations under the right of first offer.

Outcome

The judgment was affirmed. The club was awarded its costs on appeal.