Premium Stones Trading v. AMS Stones Warehouse CA4/1

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 24, 2013D061619California5,765 words

Opinion

Opinion

Facts" section of the opening brief merely presents on overview of the procedural history

of the dispute as well as a cursory explanation of the witnesses at trial. AMS and

McEwen do not supply us with the relevant facts based on the evidence admitted at trial.

Instead, they merely present us with "evidence" and argument that support only their

position. This is improper and inappropriate, especially when AMS and McEwen have

2 submitted the only brief in this matter. We therefore have provided a factual and

procedural history of this matter based on the record with minimal guidance from the

opening brief.

The Operative Pleadings

Premium Stones brought suit against AMS, McEwen, Faber Stone, LLC (Faber),

FBR Marble, Inc. (FBR), and Hikmet Aksel (Aksel) (AMS, McEwen, Faber, FBR, and

Aksel collectively referred to as Defendants) for breach of oral contract, goods sold and

delivered, open book account, account stated, and claim on dishonored checks. The

gravamen of the complaint involved Premium Stones's contention that AMS failed to pay

it pursuant to an oral consignment agreement. Premium Stones also alleged McEwen,

Faber, FBR, and Aksel were all alter egos of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.