Cal. App.3d 290, 296 (Union Bank).) Thus, under existing California case law, Xxxxxxx‘s failure to show that he ―tried to negotiate‖ the arbitration provisions (maj. opn., ante, at p. 13) is an important factor in determining whether he has established adhesivenesss. The majority‘s contrary view, which is not supported by our precedents, effectively disapproves these decisions.
Cal. App. 4th 731, 737 (Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2001) (“The purpose of [a credit bid] is to avoid the inefficiency of requiring the lender to tender cash which would only be immediately returned to it.”). When the Teisinas appealed the summary judgment order and several interlocutory orders (CAAP-12-0000529), the circuit court conditioned a stay upon the posting of a $400,000.00 bond. The Teisinas were unable to post a bond and the appeal was eventually dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The public auction took place on June 5, 2012. There were two bids for Parcel 33 –- a $400,000 bid to include the Teisinas’ house and a $425,000 bid from Trustee Xxxxxxx not to include the Teisinas’ house. On October 25, 2012, the circuit court confirmed the sale. The Confirmation Order states that “the Teisinas’ house on Parcel 33 contributed $150,000 in value to the confirmed purchase price of $425,000” and, therefore, “it is appropriate that the Teisinas’ house bear 150/425ths of the fees and costs incurred in this partition as attributed to Parcel 33[.]” After payment of the respective percentage of the commissioner’s fees and expenses ($12,336.52), Trustee Xxxxxxx’x attorneys’ fees ($180,000.00) and costs ($4,100.97), and Parcel 33’s real property taxes ($44,914.26), the Teisinas were awarded $71,750.126 to be distributed when they surrendered their house. The circuit court 6 The Teisinas’ share of the sale proceeds was calculated as follows: Share of Gross Proceeds ($425,000) $ 150,000.00 Share of Commissioner’s Fees/Costs ($ 3,918.66) Share of Property Taxes ($ 15,852.09) Share of Trustee Xxxxxxx’x Fees/Costs ($ 58,479.13) NET DISTRIBUTION $ 71,750.12 ordered the sale to close by November 25, 2012, unless extended, and “retain[ed] jurisdiction, as needed to assure the orderly transition of Parcel 33 and to make any adjustments to the distribution to the Teisinas as may be warranted if there is noncompliance or delay in [peacefully surrendering their house].” In all respects, the Confirmation Order effectively terminated the Teisinas’ rights to the property. Final judgment as to Parcel 33 has not been entered.7
Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp. 132 FERC ¶ 61,148 at P 40 (2010). 12 Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Oper., Inc., 129 FERC ¶ 61,282, at P 30 (2009). Under the Agreement, Powerex, not BC Hydro, will join and participate in the EIM, be subject to the EIM-related provisions of the CAISO tariff, and settle EIM transactions with the CAISO. BC Hydro will enter into the CAISO-BC Hydro Data Sharing Agreement to support Powerex’s EIM participation; BC Hydro, however, will not assume any participant role or undertake any commercial activities in the EIM. Nothing in the Agreement interferes with BC Hydro’s compliance with Provincial and Canadian law, interferes with the BCUC’s regulatory oversight or jurisdiction over BC Hydro, or alters BC Hydro’s non-U.S. jurisdictional status in any way. Nothing in the Agreement extends U.S. legal and regulatory obligations or U.S.-regulated activity into a Canadian province. The Agreement reflects the CAISO and Powerex’s expectation that BC Hydro will continue to operate as a wholly Canadian Provincial governmental balancing authority, transmission owner, operator, and service provider, and generation owner and operator for the BC Hydro system. BC Hydro will continue to manage transmission congestion within its service territory and will retain all balancing authority responsibilities in British Columbia. Powerex’s EIM transactions are defined to occur at the BC-U.S. border, such that the EIM area will not extend into Canada and will remain entirely within the U.S., subject to the Commission’s exclusive jurisdiction.13 The CAISO will create an EIM pricing node at the BC- U.S. border, but will not create or publish market prices inside British Columbia. The CAISO will model power flows inside British Columbia and inform BC Hydro of any resulting modeled congestion inside British Columbia, but the CAISO will not manage congestion or dispatch physical resources inside British Columbia. Although Powerex is not a balancing authority or transmission service provider, its participation in the EIM will be fundamentally consistent with the participation of other EIM entities, all of which are U.S. balancing authorities and transmission providers. Consistent with the current participation model for EIM entities, the CAISO’s full network model will include all relevant information associated with the operation of the BC Hydro balancing authority area, including
Cal. CIV. CODE §§3479 et seq.; (xii) Storm Water Discharge Rules, 40 C.F.R. §§122.26, 122.30-37; and, (xiii) all other state laws, rules, orders, directives, and codes, regulations judgments, and orders relating to (i) emissions, discharges, releases, or threatened releases of Hazardous Substances into the environment (including but not limited to ambient air, surface water, groundwater, land surface or subsurface strata); and (ii) the manufacture, processing, distribution, use, generation, treatment, storage, disposal, transport or handling of Hazardous Substances, as such laws are amended, and the regulations and administrative codes applicable thereto. The LICENSEE agrees that it shall abide by all applicable Hazardous Substances laws, rules and regulations, relating to Hazardous Substances including, but not limited to, 49 C.F.R. Parts 171 et seq. The LICENSEE shall not cause any Hazardous Substances to be brought upon, kept, used, stored, generated, treated, managed or disposed of in, on or about or transferred to or from the Airport, except to the extent that such Hazardous Substances are (i) necessary for or useful to the LICENSEE’s business and (ii) used, kept and stored in a manner that complies with all applicable Environmental Laws, the Airport Rules and Regulations, and all other applicable laws. The LICENSEE shall comply with all applicable Environmental Laws and shall not engage in any activity on or about the Airport that violates any applicable Environmental Law. In conducting its operations and maintenance on the Airport under this LICENSE, the LICENSEE shall comply with such regulations regarding the storage, distribution, processing, handling and/or disposal, including the storm water discharge requirements, of Hazardous Substances including, but not limited to, gasoline, aviation fuel, jet fuel, diesel fuel, lubricants and/or solvents, whether the obligation for such compliance is placed on the owner of the land, owner of the improvements or user of the improvements. The LICENSEE shall at its own expense take all investigatory and/or remedial action required or ordered by any governmental agency having jurisdiction or any applicable Environmental Law for clean-up and removal of any contamination involving any Hazardous Substances caused by the LICENSEE. In conducting a clean-up of a Hazardous Substance release under this LICENSE, the LICENSEE shall comply with applicable Environmental Laws. The LICENSEE shall not allow or cause the entry of ...
Cal. Civ. Code § 1542. The Parties do not deem the releases described in Sections VII(A)(5), VII(B)(4) or VII(C)(3) of this Agreement (“Releases”) to be “general releases” as contemplated by California or similar state, federal, provincial, territorial or tribal laws. To the extent that any court construes the Releases as “general releases,” the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Settlement Class Members, specifically waive any and all provisions, rights and benefits conferred by section 1542 of the California Civil Code or any comparable statutory or common law provision of any other jurisdiction with respect to the Releases. The Parties acknowledge, and the Settlement Class Members shall be deemed by operation of the entry of final approval by the Court to have acknowledged, that the foregoing waiver was separately bargained for and a key element of this Agreement.
Cal. App.5th 1070 (2019), the court interpreted this statute in a collection action where the creditor sold its account to a debt collection agency, which sought prejudgment interest based on a statutory rate rather than the contractual rate. The court framed the question as follows: “if the contract sets forth a legal rate of interest, can the creditor ignore the contract interest provision and instead choose to collect prejudgment interest at the statutory rate set forth in section 3289, subdivision (b)?” The court answered “no.” Because this “appears to be a question of first impression in California,” the court looked to cases interpreting statutes in other states and to the legislative history of section 3289. Unsurprisingly, the court concluded “if the creditor entered into a contractual agreement containing a legal rate of interest, it remains bound by the terms of that agreement; prejudgment interest at the statutory rate is available only in the absence of an applicable contractual provision.”
Cal. App.5th 886 (2019), held the party seeking to reduce an award of future damages to present value bears the burden of proving an appropriate method of doing so, including the appropriate discount rate. A party who seeks an upward adjustment of a future damages award to account for inflation likewise bears the burden of proving an appropriate method and inflation rate. Finding no California case directly on point, the court followed Ninth Circuit precedent in Xxxx x. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 684 X.0x 000, 000 (0xx Xxx. 0000), which reasons the proper rate is an evidentiary issue that should be borne by the party seeking to adjust the award. This rule is consistent with the Directions for Use to CACI 3904A on Present Cash Value, which states: “It would appear that because reduction to present value benefits the defendant, the defendant bears the burden of proof on the discount rate.” Where the defendant fails to carry its burden, the trial court should not discount an award of future damages.
Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp, 171 FERC ¶ 61,262 (2020) (accepting a split resource participation agreement between the CAISO and the Calpine Xxxxxx Energy Center); see also, infra, fn. 18.
Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 132 FERC ¶ 61,148 at P 40 (2010). inconsistency between either of those documents and the Agreement, and subsection (b)(2) provides that the Agreement will prevail in the case of inconsistency between it and the CAISO tariff. Also, section 2.1.1 of the Agreement provides that section 29 of the CAISO tariff, as applied by the Powerex Canadian EIM Entity Agreement, will govern Powerex’s submission of information. Under sections 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 of the Agreement, Powerex will abide by the obligations imposed on EIM entity scheduling coordinators, and it will have the responsibility as principal for all payment obligations under section 29 of the CAISO tariff as applied by the Powerex Canadian EIM Entity Agreement. Section 2.1.4 of the Agreement establishes that Powerex’s status as a Canadian EIM entity scheduling coordinator is subject to section 29 of the CAISO tariff, as applied by the Powerex Canadian EIM Entity Agreement. The Powerex Canadian EIM Entity Scheduling Coordinator Agreement also omits section 2.1.3 of the pro forma EIM Entity Scheduling Coordinator Agreement that requires the scheduling coordinator to ensure that each EIM entity it represents is represented by a pro forma EIM Entity Agreement. This requirement is unnecessary because Powerex will not be representing any EIM entities under the Agreement. Instead, Powerex will be representing a Canadian EIM entity under the Agreement.
Cal. 4th 969, as requests for exclusion do not apply to the PAGA Claims, and the State’s claims for civil penalties for the released PAGA Claims are also extinguished. All PAGA Claims, as defined in the Settlement Agreement, are settled and Class Members are prohibited from pursuing a further action under PAGA for the covered PAGA Claims.
