Legal Opinion

Ebensteiner Co. v. Chadmar Group

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 11, 2006No. B184525PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

TURNER, P. J.

Plaintiff, The Ebensteiner Company, Inc., has appealed from the demurrer dismissal of its second amended complaint. The second amended complaint alleged causes of action for constructive fraud, conspiracy to defraud, and fiduciary duty breach against defendant, the Chadmar Group. While the appeal was pending, the parties entered into a settlement agreement. We conclude the settlement agreement, which explicitly requires the present appeal be dismissed, has rendered moot the issue of whether the demurrer dismissal should have been entered. We therefore order dismissal of…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the BlindCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Folsom v. Butte County Assn. of GovernmentsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Lundquist v. ReusserCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Burch v. GeorgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
  5. Coleman v. DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL ADMININISTRATIONCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Ebensteiner Co., Inc. v. Chadmar GroupCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006

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

Powered by the Exa API