Karz

Karz v. Karl

Good Law
137 Cal. App. 3d 637·187 Cal. Rptr. 183·1982 Cal. App. LEXIS 2154
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 22, 1982Civ. 62163California4,655 words

Opinion

Opinion

Potter, J.

Plaintiff Erwin Karz (hereinafter Karz) appeals from a judgment that he “shall take nothing” from defendants Harry Karl (hereinafter Karl), Debbie Reynolds (aka Mary Frances Karl, hereinafter Reynolds) and Raymax Productions, Inc. (hereinafter Raymax) in Karz’ action for damages for breach of contract, fraud and conversion. The judgment was rendered in a trial department when Karz advised the trial court of his inability to prove essential elements of his case in view of a prior discovery order granting defendants’ motion for sanctions which precluded him from introducing eleven different categories of proof.

The gravamen of Karz’ complaint filed in December 1974 is that in January 1970, he and defendants entered into an oral joint venture agreement for the conversion of a Hollywood apartment house owned by Karz into a museum (the Hollywood Hall of Fame) for the display of memorabilia and “props” from the entertainment industry. Defendants allegedly agreed that Karz would alter and remodel the apartment house and that defendants would obtain the props and memorabilia and provide approximately $300,000 capital for the project. Plaintiff performed all of his obligations…

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.