McCauley

McCauley v. BFC Direct Marketing

Good Law
16 Cal. App. 4th 1262·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 678·20 Cal. Rptr. 2d 498·93 Daily Journal DAR 8128·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4885
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 25, 1993G012761California2,859 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sills, J.

We can safely say, without fear of contradiction, that the attorneys in this case know their way to the Court of Appeal. Before this latest round, the various parties had petitioned this court for some type of extraordinary relief on no less than five occasions, resulting in four summary denials and one unpublished opinion. If we could issue frequent flyer miles, these parties would qualify for a free trip somewhere.

This case finally reached an “appeal” posture when defendant BFC Directing Marketing, along with its principals, William Butcher and Arnold Forde (collectively BFC), prevailed on a summary judgment motion. For the reasons that follow, we reverse.

Facts

Defendant California Tax Reduction Movement (CTRM), which is not a respondent here, was founded by tax crusader Howard Jarvis shortly after Proposition 13 was passed in 1978. Sometime in 1984, CTRM organized a political action committee known as the “Committee of Over One Million Taxpayers to Save Proposition 13, a Project of CTRM” (Million). The purpose of “Million” was to support Proposition 36, another tax initiative, on the November 1984 state ballot. McCauley’s complaint, brought as a private cause 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.