Cal Sample Clauses

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.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
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. EVID. CODE § 622 (‘‘The facts recited in a written instrument are conclusively presumed to be true as between the parties thereto ’’). The parties, intending to be legally bound, agree as follows:
Cal. CIV. CODE § 47(b)(2) (last modified Feb. 16, 2015). 100. Blank x. Xxxxxx, 703 P.2d 58, 63–65 (Cal. 1985); Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Bear Xxxxxxx & Co., 000 X.0x 000, 000–98 (Cal. 1990). 101. Theme Promotions, Inc. v. News Am. Mktg. XXX, 000 X.0x 991, 1008 n.7 (9th Cir. 2008). 102. Id. at 1007–08. 103. CAL. CIV. CODE § 47(b) (last modified Feb. 16, 2015). 104. Furthermore, the legislature has expressly prohibited settlement agreements that violate the Xxxxxxxxxx Act. California Business and Professional Code § 16722 explicitly states that “any contract or agreement in violation of this chapter is absolutely void and is not enforceable at law or in equity.” CAL. BUS. AND PROF’L CODE § 16722 (last modified 2015). Under California law as well, the courts have stated that whenever any public rights are implicated by settlement agreements and the adversarial system has not functioned to expose potentially collusive settlements, a third party whose interests are affected may invoke the illegality of the said agreement. See River Garden Farms, Inc. v. Super. Ct., 26 Cal. App. 3d 986, 997, 1000 (1972). This is further reinforced by the purpose of the litigation privilege. The principal purpose of the privilege is “to afford litigants and witnesses
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.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
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. Adm. Code : Title 2, Div. 3; Title 14, Dig. 6. AB. 884: 12/14/84, OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION:
Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.