Defendant's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel
impression that the case was settled. Defendant has also not established grounds for rescission under Civil Code section 1689(b).
Civil Code section 1689(b) permits rescission when consent was given by mistake. However, where the plaintiff has no reason to know of and does not cause the defendant's unilateral mistake of fact, the defendant must establish the following facts to obtain rescission of the contract: (1) that defendant made a mistake regarding a basic assumption upon which the defendant made the contract, (2) that the mistake has a material effect upon the agreed exchange of performances that is adverse to the defendant, (3) that the defendant does not bear the risk of the mistake, and (4) the effect of the mistake is such that enforcement of the contract would be unconscionable. Donovan v. RRL Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 261 as modified (Sept. 12, 2001).
The alleged mistake concerns a monetary term selected and inserted by Defendant in its own statutory offer. Defendant has not shown that Plaintiffs caused or knew of the alleged mistake, that Defendant did not bear the risk of the mistake, or that enforcement would be unconscionable. Donovan v. RRL Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 261 as modified (Sept. 12, 2001; Reed v. Williamson (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 244; Civ. Code, Sec. 1654; Westmoreland v. Kindercare Education LLC (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 967.
Notably, Plaintiff's sued for recission of the vehicle purchase contract and for damages as well as a double civil penalty. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant's section 998 offer essentially provided for a statutory repurchase and a one-time civil penalty ahead of a looming trial date is not unheard of and Defendant's do not dispute this.
Finally, in reforming a written agreement, a court may transpose, reject, or supply words, but has no power to make new contracts for the parties; rather, the court may only reform the writing to conform with the mutual understanding of the parties at the time they entered into it, if such an understanding exists. (
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
CV-25-004133 - MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC vs FIGUEROA, MONICA - Defendant's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - DENIED, without prejudice.
Defendant's Counsel Alexander Penley of Cordoba Legal Group fails to check the required boxes on his supporting declaration, Form MC-52, affirming that counsel has confirmed his client's address within the last 30 days or has been unable to confirm the client's address. Counsel also failed to check whether trial has been set in this matter, and if so, the date for which trial has been set. CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 3.1362(d). The 30-day confirmation requirement is substantive, not merely technical and places an affirmative investigative obligation on counsel before filing the motion. Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice.
CV-26-000068 - JACKSON, NICHOLAS TYLER vs DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO - a) Defendant's Motion to Strike the First Amended Complaint - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion. b) Defendant's Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion.
a-b) The Court requires additional time to review the pleadings. Therefore, this matter is continued to August 25, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court to be heard with defendant Doctor's Medical Center of Modesto's Demurrer and Motion to Strike.
The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Commissioner Jared D. Beeson in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA: ***There are no Tentative Rulings for Department 19***