Dameshghi

Dameshghi v. Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc.

Caution
3 Cal. App. 4th 1262·6 Cal. Rptr. 2d 515
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 25, 1992Docket Nos. D013074, D014129, D014481California9,796 words

Opinion

Opinion

Huffman, J.

Plaintiff Michael Dameshghi appeals the judgments separately entered in favor of two groups of defendants and respondents, (1) Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc., (Texaco), its individual employees, Gary Kirner and C. T. Trammell, and its franchisee, Gilbert Peet, and (2) the real estate brokers and escrow agents, Business Opportunities Unlimited, Inc. (B.O.U.), Joseph Tausch, Cynthia Tausch, and Ghassan El-Khoury (the broker/escrow defendants), who were involved in Dameshghi’s failed attempt to purchase Feet’s Texaco service station. The trial court granted a motion for summary judgment brought by Texaco and its employees, as well as a similar motion by Peet, on the grounds that there were no triable issues of fact as to the contractual rights claimed by Dameshghi. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c.) At later proceedings, the trial court granted a motion for nonsuit in favor of the broker/escrow defendants and awarded attorney fees and costs in their favor. (Code Civ. Proc, § 581c; Civ. Code, § 1717.)

Dameshghi argues on appeal that Texaco unlawfully exercised a right of first refusal that it was not entitled to or, alternatively, that it waived under Business and Professions…

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.