Procedural Posture

Appellants challenged summary judgment in the Superior Court of Kern County (California) in their suit alleging breach of warranty of habitability, nuisance, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent violation of statutory duty, and constructive eviction and seeking injunctive relief from unlawful business practices. The litigants were counseled by California class action attorneys in their civil litigation matter.

Overview

Appellant instituted suit against appellees–owners of the premises she occupied under a month-to-month tenancy–seeking to hold appellees liable for damages resulting from the dilapidated and unsafe condition of the rental premises. Appellant alleged breach of warranty of habitability, nuisance, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent violation of statutory duty, and constructive eviction; she challenged the trial court’s order of summary judgment in appellees’ favor. In reversing, the court concluded that appellant’s remedies were not limited to an action against the landlord for breach of the warranty of habitability, but included the right to sue the landlord and his agents in tort for damages for mental distress and injury to personal property suffered as a result of the failure to maintain the premises. Although appellant could plead multiple causes of action based upon various theories of liability, she would not be permitted a double recovery.

Outcome

The order of summary judgment was reversed, because appellant was not limited to an action against her landlord for breach of warranty of habitability but could sue in tort for damages for mental distress and injury to property resulting from the landlord’s failure to maintain the rental premises.

Procedural Posture

Defendant licensee appealed a judgment from the Superior Court of Orange County (California), which awarded plaintiff assignee contract damages based on an alleged failure to pay royalties on products sold under a patent licensing agreement. The assignee cross-appealed the amount of damages and challenged a postjudgment order denying its motion for attorney fees.

Overview

The parties acknowledged the existence and enforceability of a patent licensing agreement, governed by Swiss law. The licensee admitted that it had acquired the licensing rights and that it had not paid all royalties owed. The court held that the federal courts did not have exclusive jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) because the complaint as pleaded did not necessarily invoke federal patent law. Although patent law issues conceivably could have arisen, relief did not necessarily depend on the resolution of such issues. The right to collect royalties owed under the licensing agreement was validly assigned under Civ. Code, §§ 954, 1044, without also assigning the underlying patent rights. The licensee’s admissions were binding under Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.410, subd. (a), and provided substantial evidence supporting the award of damages. The trial court erred in refusing to award attorney fees to the assignee as the prevailing party in accordance with Swiss law; such an award did not violate public policy because Civ. Code, § 1717, specifically authorized contractual attorney fees, and the application of Swiss law was not waived by being first raised in postjudgment proceedings.

Outcome

The court affirmed the judgment, reversed the postjudgment order that had denied the motion for attorney fees, and remanded to the trial court with directions to determine the amount of attorney fees under Swiss law.