Classen

Classen v. Weller

Good Law
145 Cal. App. 3d 27·192 Cal. Rptr. 914·1983 Cal. App. LEXIS 1900
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 19, 1983Civ. 52304California7,423 words

Opinion

Opinion

Feinberg, J.

The builder (Classen) appeals from summary judgments in favor of the developers Weller (Weller) and Hillsborough Development Corporation (HDC), and the broker, Fox & Carskadon (Fox), that denied relief on Classen’s cross-complaint for damages under the Cartwright and Sherman (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16700 et seq., 15 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.) antitrust acts.

On appeal, the major questions are whether Classen alleged compensable damages and is a member of the class.

For the reasons set forth below, we reverse with directions.

The Record

Weller, HDC and Fox denied every factual allegation of Classen’s cross-complaint. Our facts are based on the admissions, declarations, and uncontested deposition transcripts properly included in the record.

Classen was asked by a client, Mr. Smith (Smith), to build a home on a lot in the exclusive Hillsborough real estate development known as “TobinClark.” This lot was owned by HDC; Weller was president of HDC. Smith liked the lot, but was told by Weller that lots in Tobin-Clark would only be sold to builders and that the sale had to go through Fox. Weller subsequently also told Classen that the lot could only be sold to a builder, and that the…

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.