Plaintiff, corporate director, appealed decision from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, (California) granting summary judgment in favor of defendant, corporation in an action for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud. Plaintiff alleged that an oral contract to pay a finder’s fee in a real estate transaction was enforceable, that defendant was estopped to assert the statute of frauds as a defense, and other claims. Both parties were represented by their small business attorney in California.
Table of Contents
Overview
Plaintiff, corporate director, appealed grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant, corporation, in an action for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud. Plaintiff alleged that an oral contract to pay a finder’s fee in a real estate transaction was enforceable, that defendant was estopped to assert the statute of frauds as a defense, and that plaintiff may maintain an action for fraud even if the underlying oral agreement was unenforceable. On appeal, the court held that the legislature provided that finders’ agreements such as the one here must be memorialized in writing to be enforceable under Cal. Civ. Code § 1624. However, the doctrine of estoppel to plead the statute of frauds may be applied where necessary to prevent either unconscionable injury or unjust enrichment. Plaintiff was entitled to invoke the doctrine of estoppel regarding the statute of frauds. The court held that defendant’s motion for summary judgment was improperly granted. Regarding plaintiff’s claim for fraud, the court disapproved of Kroger v. Baur, 46 Cal. App. 2d 801 (1941) and held there were triable issues of fact on claim for fraudulent misrepresentation. The judgment was reversed.
Outcome
The judgment was reversed in appeal by corporate director from grant of summary judgment in favor of corporation. The court concluded that there were triable issues of fact and the grant of summary judgment was in appropriate. Defendant, corporation, was estopped to assert the statute of frauds as a defense and there were triable issues of fact on claim for fraudulent misrepresentation.
Procedural Posture
Petitioner manager sought mandate relief from an order of respondent Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which struck his request for a jury trial on his claims of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment against real party in interest business owners.
Overview
The manager alleged that the business owners refused to pay him the full amount to which he was entitled for work he had done. The court observed that the right to trial by jury guaranteed by Cal. Const., art. I, § 16, was the right as it existed at common law in 1850. The court held that the manager had a right to a jury trial on his quantum meruit claim because a common count for quantum meruit was a form of the common law action of assumpsit. Assumpsit was an action at law, not in equity. Thus, a common law court before 1850 could have entertained the action and granted the requested relief. The court stated that if a claim was, in substance, one that was cognizable at law before 1850 and sought relief that could have been obtained at law before 1850, then the action was legal and the right to jury trial attached, regardless of the extent to which the claim required the application of equitable doctrines. The court further held that the unjust enrichment claim was duplicative because unjust enrichment was not a cause of action. Rather, it was a general principle underlying various doctrines and remedies, including quasi-contract.
Outcome
The court granted the manager’s petition for writ of mandate and directed the trial court to vacate its order striking the request for a jury trial.
