Sheldon Development v. SCG America Group CA4/3

INTRODUCTION

A motion for summary judgment is properly denied where it does not “refute tenable pleaded theories.” (Hawkins v. Wilton (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 936, 942.) This is such a case. It centers on a real estate development project in the City of Garden Grove (the City). The dispute is primarily between three parties who, at one time, joined forces for purposes of securing rights to the project. But when things went south for them, their dispute reached others. Plaintiff here discovered it had been cut out of the deal and has sued not only the two other parties – alleging tortious interference theories – but also some third-party entities who negotiated for and obtained an assignment of the development rights from plaintiff’s former associates. It is plaintiff’s claims against those third-party entities which are the focus of the summary judgment motion we now review. It appears to us that the third parties moved for summary judgment on theories they wanted to address rather than the theories plaintiffs plausibly alleged. And the trial court, while producing a detailed and thoughtful ruling, nevertheless seems to have weighed evidence and construed it in defendants’ favor…