Legal Opinion

Khavarian Enterprises, Inc. v. Commline, Inc.

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 14, 2013No. B243467PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

SUZUKAWA, J.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Khavarian Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Vision Communications Co. (Vision), appeals from orders denying its motion for attorney fees and costs and granting the motion to strike its cost memorandum in favor of defendants Commline, Inc., Jeffrey Fukusawa, James Timjun, and Theresa Camden (Commline or the Commline defendants). Vision contends the trial court erred in finding that it could not properly decide either motion because the matter was resolved by settlement agreement prior to trial. Because we conclude that parties to a settlement…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Santisas v. GoodinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
  2. Chia-Lee Hsu v. AbbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Brandt v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLPCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
  5. Folsom v. Butte County Assn. of GovernmentsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Brown v. Goldstein, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
  2. Kerkeles v. City of San JoseCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
  3. Monster, LLC v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
  4. Belasco v. WellsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
  5. Active Properties, LLC v. CabreraAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 2016

7 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