Comerica Bank v. Jewish Educational Movement CA2/2
Filed 2/5/14 Comerica Bank v. Jewish Educational Movement CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
COMERICA BANK, B248315
Plaintiff, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC452033) v.
JEWISH EDUCATIONAL MOVEMENT,
Defendant and Appellant;
NETAN ELI HEBREW ACADEMY,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Charles F. Palmer and Elizabeth Allen White, Judges. Affirmed.
Hillel Chodos for Defendant and Appellant.
Law Offices of Kenneth W. Ralidis and Kenneth W. Ralidis; The Ehrlich Law Firm and Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich for Defendant and Respondent.
This dispute concerns a $500,000 cash donation awarded by Kohl’s Department Store (Kohl’s) to respondent Netan Eli Hebrew Academy (Netan Eli) in a charitable giveaway contest benefitting schools. Appellant Jewish Educational Movement (JEM) claims entitlement to $450,000 of the donated funds pursuant to an agreement with Netan Eli to share the prize money in exchange for JEM’s assistance in the contest. Netan Eli filed a motion in limine to exclude all evidence of the agreement with JEM on the ground that the agreement was illegal or immoral and that its enforcement was contrary to public policy. After the trial court granted the motion in limine, the parties stipulated to entry of judgment. JEM appeals from the judgment and the trial court’s determination that the agreement with Netan Eli was unenforceable. We affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND In July 2010, Kohl’s initiated a $10 million charitable donation program to schools in the United States. Eligible schools were invited to submit proposals to receive a $500,000 grant. Those proposals would be displayed on the contest’s webpage, where members of the public could vote for the grant requests they considered most worthy. The 20 schools whose proposals received the most votes would be declared the winners. Kohl’s contest requirements specified that the contest was open to public and nonprofit charter and private schools, grades K through 12. The contest rules stated that the winning schools would “receive funding needed to complete only the projects they have outlined in their project summary and budget overview paperwork” and that the funds would “be awarded via a one time donation made to each individual winning school.” The contest rules further stated that “[f]unding use is subject to audit and review” and that the “[d]onation is not transferable or assignable.” JEM is a charitable organization that provides classes and sports facilities for children in Beverly Hills at the former Beverly Hills YMCA. JEM did not operate a school that met the Kohl’s contest eligibility criteria, but it wanted to obtain the Kohl’s donation to fund its operations. In order to do so, Rabbi Hertzel Illulian of JEM approached Kamran Neydavood of Netan Eli, because Netan Eli had a school that met the Kohl’s eligibility criteria. Illulian told Neydavood about a sizable monetary donation
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)