Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Morrow v. Hood Communications

Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Two

December 2, 1997, Decided

No. A078994.

Opinion

 [*925]  LAMBDEN, J. 

 CA(1)(1) We have before us a ] motion for stipulated reversal of the judgment of the trial court and dismissal of this appeal. Such motions are not authorized by statute or rule of court but by the decision of our Supreme Court in Neary v. Regents of University of California (1992) 3 Cal. 4th 273 [10 Cal. Rptr. 2d 859, 834 P.2d 119].

Notice of appeal was filed in this court on June 24, 1997. The issues involved in the appeal have not been identified and briefed by the parties and the record has not yet been filed. What little we know about the case comes from the papers filed in support of the motion for stipulated reversal.

Evidently, plaintiff Andrew Morrow (Morrow) commenced this action against defendants Hood Communications, Inc. (Hood) and Fry & Associates (Fry) for the breach of leases [***2]  pertaining to separate premises in San Mateo County owned by Morrow. Morrow alleged, among other things, that Hood was the parent corporation of Fry and liable as its alter ego. He additionally alleged that Hood and Fry "had engaged in a de facto merger that rendered Hood liable under the leases." Fry did not deny liability. The primary issue at trial was the relationship between Hood and Fry. After a four-day trial to the court, judgment was rendered for Morrow against both defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $ 51,331.29, together with interest thereon and reasonable attorney fees and costs. The court found that Fry was not the alter ego of Hood but that a de facto merger had occurred and that Hood was therefore liable for Fry's obligations under the lease with Morrow.

Pursuant to rule 8 of the Local Rules of the First Appellate District (23 pt. 3 West's Ann. Rules of Court (1996 ed.) pp. 91-92), which pertains to motions for stipulated reversal, 1 counsel for the parties have filed declarations stating that the judgment does not involve important public rights or  [*926]  unfair, illegal or corrupt practices, or torts affecting a significant number of persons [***3]  not parties to the litigation. On the basis of "information and belief" counsel also state that "stipulated reversal of the judgment will not prejudice any third parties," and that they have no knowledge that the judgment sought to be reversed "would have a collateral estoppel or other effect on any other matter, claim, or action."

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

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

59 Cal. App. 4th 924 *; 69 Cal. Rptr. 2d 489 **; 1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 990 ***; 97 Cal. Daily Op. Service 9048

ANDREW MORROW, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HOOD COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Prior History:  [***1]  Superior Court of San Mateo County. Super. Ct. No. 388146. Harlan K. Veal, Judge.

Disposition: Motion Granted.

CORE TERMS

settlement

Civil Procedure, Judgments, Relief From Judgments, Altering & Amending Judgments, Appeals, Stipulated Reversals, Preclusion of Judgments, General Overview, Estoppel, Collateral Estoppel