Hire corporate lawyer

Intervener lender appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of San Joaquin County (California), which granted defendant customer's motions in limine to exclude all evidence on the lender's two causes of action and entered judgment against the lender in a construction contract dispute between the customer and plaintiff general contractor.

Overview

The lender extended a loan to the general contractor, and the general contractor executed a note, security agreement, and business loan agreement. The court held that, because the lender would not have been entitled to fees on the portion of its complaint in intervention, the customer was not entitled under the reciprocity provision of Cal. Civ. Code § 1717 to its fees in defending such claim on the contract between the general contractor and the customer. The hire corporate lawyer was entitled to an award of attorney fees, however, for successfully defending the lender's contractual claim regarding the first progress payment because the lender's claim was an action “on the contract,” the security agreement, within the meaning of § 1717.

Outcome

The court affirmed the judgment.

Petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus challenging his conviction for robbery while armed under Cal. Penal Code §§ 211 and 12022(a) and assault with a deadly weapon under Cal. Penal Code § 245(a).

Overview

Petitioner was convicted of robbery while armed and assault with a deadly weapon after pleading guilty as part of a "package-deal" plea bargain in which his two codefendants also pled guilty. Petitioner then filed a request for a writ of habeas corpus. The court held that ordinarily the trial court could properly rely on a validly executed waiver form in determining the voluntariness of a guilty plea, however, when a defendant pled guilty pursuant to a "package-deal" arrangement, the trial court had to conduct a further inquiry into the voluntariness of the plea. The court held that "package-deal" plea bargains were not per se coercive, but could be under a totality of circumstances. The court held that because petitioner had not alleged sufficient facts to support a showing of coercion, they were required to deny the writ without prejudice to the filing of a petition with the trial court alleging sufficient facts that his plea was involuntary. The court also held that petitioner was not denied effective assistance of counsel, because counsel made an informed tactical choice to urge his client to accept the plea bargain.

Outcome

The court denied petitioner's request for a writ of habeas corpus without prejudice to the filing of a new petition with the trial court to show that his plea was involuntary. Petitioner had not alleged sufficient facts to prove that his "package-deal" plea agreement was the product of coercion.