Aronson v. Advance Cell Technology
California Court of Appeal
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
- Santisas v. GoodinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Wash. Mut. Bank v. Superior Court of Orange Cty.California Supreme Court · 2001
- Nedlloyd Lines B v. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- International Industries, Inc. v. OlenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- ABF Capital Corp. v. BerglassCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.