Golden

Golden v. Anderson

Good Law
1967 Cal. App. LEXIS 1911·256 Cal. App. 2d 714·64 Cal. Rptr. 404
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 6, 1967Civ. 30483California2,117 words

Opinion

Opinion

Jefferson, J.

Plaintiff, a real estate broker, filed an amended complaint against the Forest Lawn Company (a California corporation), against three connected corporations and against nine individual defendants, who were officers, employees or agents of the corporate defendants, for damages for alleged intentional interference with a brokerage agreement existing between plaintiff and the sellers of certain real property (referred to as defendants Bayly), and for declaratory relief from all defendants.

The nine individual defendants, of the thirteen defendants Forest Lawn, filed a motion for summary judgment. The court below granted the motion and plaintiff appeals.

In its memorandum of decision, the court set out the following grounds for its ruling:

(1) Six of the nine defendants (Anderson, Braunschweiger, Eaton, Eilers, McLaughlin and Talbott), could not be held liable to plaintiff for interference with any business relationship between plaintiff and defendants Bayly, because no evidence was presented that they had any knowledge such relationship existed. (2) As to the three remaining defendants (Blalock, Morrison and Llewellyn), even though there was evidence that they were aware of 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.