Florida Asset Financing Corp. v. Bortin Petrini & Conron

MEMORANDUM *

Florida Asset Financing Corp. (FAFC), Ahed Mousa Alansari (Ed Alansari), Lorenz Ahadeff Cannon & Rose, LLP (LACR), and Borton, Petrini & Conron (BPC), a California law partnership, appeal different facets of the district court’s decision. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.

(1) FAFC argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of BPC. We agree in part. The district court correctly determined that Marc Welton did not have ostensible authority to sign a guaranty on BPC’s behalf, as there was no act or declaration on BPC’s behalf which expressly or impliedly granted that authority to him. Furthermore, there was no reliance by FAFC on any act of BPC. See Associated Creditors’ Agency v. Davis, 13 Cal.3d 374, 399 , 530 P.2d 1084, 1100 , 118 Cal.Rptr. 772, 788 , (1975); see also Gulf Ins. Co. v. TIG Ins. Co., 86 Cal.App.4th 422, 439 , 103 Cal. Rptr.2d 305, 317 (2001); Asplund v. Selected Invs. in Fin. Equities, Inc., 86 Cal. App.4th 26 , 46 n. 12, 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 34 , 47 n. 12 (2000). Nor is BPC vicariously liable for Welton’s conduct under a respondeat superior theory because it could not have foreseen that he would sign a guaranty…