Ram Pizza v. Super. Ct. CA4/2

California Court of Appeal May 28, 2014 No. E060399Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court erred in granting summary adjudication on claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, as triable issues of fact existed regarding whether the defendants' conduct excused the plaintiffs' performance and whether the defendants acted in good faith.

Issues

Whether the plaintiffs' failure to formally request franchise transfer approval is excused if the defendants indicated the transferee would not be approved.
Whether the plaintiffs may pursue a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing based on the defendants' alleged bad faith exercise of their right of refusal.

Disposition. Granted in part and denied in part.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“petitioners’ assertion that real parties’ representative clearly informed petitioners that the proposed transferee would not be approved could, on a persuasive and detailed evidentiary showing, be found to excuse petitioners’ failure to perform”

“the gravamen of petitioners’ claims is that real parties in interest did not exercise their right of refusal in good faith when they allegedly informed petitioners that the proposed transferee was not acceptable.”

Filed 5/28/14 Ram Pizza v. Super. Ct. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

RAM PIZZA, INC., et al.,

Petitioners, E060399

v. (Super.Ct.No. RIC 1100608)

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION RIVERSIDE COUNTY,

Respondent;

DOMINOS PIZZA, et al.,

Real Parties in Interest.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. Richard J.

Oberholzer, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Kern Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice

pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Granted in part and denied in part.

Reid & Hellyer, Michael G. Kerbs and David G. Moore for Petitioners.

No appearance for Respondent.

Kolar & Associates, Elizabeth L. Kolar and Michelle A. Burr for Real Parties in

Interest.

In this matter we have reviewed the petition and the opposition filed by real parties

in interest. We have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of

settled principles of law, and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is

Ram Pizza v. Super. Ct. CA4/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION RIVERSIDE COUNTY,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

MILLER J.

AI Brief