Callahan v. 2241-2249 2nd St. LLC

Callahan v. 2241-2249 2nd St. LLC

Opinion

Defendants and cross-complainants, Colton Callahan and Michael Callahan (the Callahans), purport to appeal from an order granting summary judgment of their cross-complaint in favor of plaintiff and cross-defendant, 2241-2249 2nd Street, LLC, (2nd Street). 2nd Street argues the appeal should be dismissed as premature. We agree.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Following a failed business venture to create a cannabis dispensary in Napa, California, Elliot Taylor and Ron Taylor (the Taylors) and 2nd Street sued the Callahans.² In the operative pleading, the third amended complaint ("TAC"), the Taylors and 2nd Street allege various causes of action and seek declaratory relief. The Callahans filed a third amended cross-complaint ("cross-complaint") to the TAC seeking damages and declaratory relief against the Taylors and 2nd Street.³

The TAC and cross-complaint involve the same contracts and transactions with respect to the parties interests' in real property located at 2241-2449 2nd Street in Napa, California (the Property), the acquisition of a cannabis dispensary [*2]  permit (the Permit), and the right to operate a cannabis retail business at the Property.

2nd Street filed a motion for summary judgment as to the cross-complaint arguing, among other things, that the Callahans had no interest in the Property. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of 2nd Street, finding in relevant part that the undisputed evidence established that the only document purporting to support the Callahans's interest in the Property was invalid under the statute of frauds. The Callahans have appealed this ruling, despite the fact that no judgment has been entered by the trial court.

Discussion

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.