Legal Opinion

Aronson v. Advance Cell Technology

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 21, 2011No. A129336Published

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

SEPULVEDA, J.

After respondents Gary D. Aronson and John S. Gorton voluntarily dismissed their breach-of-contract lawsuit against appellant Advanced Cell Technology (ACT), ACT filed a motion for attorney fees, which the trial court denied. Appellant argues that had the trial court employed the correct choice-of-law analysis, it would have awarded appellant its reasonable attorney fees as the party that prevailed in this action. We disagree and affirm.

I

Factual and Procedural Background

Respondents entered into a settlement agreement with appellant on September 14, 2005, to resolve a…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Santisas v. GoodinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
  2. Wash. Mut. Bank v. Superior Court of Orange Cty.California Supreme Court · 2001
  3. Nedlloyd Lines B v. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  4. International Industries, Inc. v. OlenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
  5. ABF Capital Corp. v. BerglassCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API