Ebensteiner Co. v. Chadmar Group

Good Law
143 Cal. App. 4th 1174
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 11, 2006No. B184525California2,692 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Turner, J.

Plaintiff, The Ebensteiner Company, Inc., has appealed from the demurrer dismissal of its second amended complaint. The second amended complaint alleged causes of action for constructive fraud, conspiracy to defraud, and fiduciary duty breach against defendant, the Chadmar Group. While the appeal was pending, the parties entered into a settlement agreement. We conclude the settlement agreement, which explicitly requires the present appeal be dismissed, has rendered moot the issue of whether the demurrer dismissal should have been entered. We therefore order dismissal of the present appeal.

While the appeal was pending, the parties participated in a mediation before Retired Justice Edward J. Wallin which resulted in a written stipulation for settlement which explicitly refers to Code of Civil Procedure 1 section 664.6. The stipulated settlement agreement was executed by plaintiff and defendant as well as two other defendants, Charles Chastain and James *1177 Waldorf. All parties were represented by counsel. The stipulated settlement provides in part: “1. Defendants, Charles Chastain, the Chadmar Group, and James Waldorf, shall pay to plaintiffs) The Ebensteiner Company,…

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.