Legal Opinion

Salazar v. Interland, Inc.

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 26, 2007No. B189889PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

DOI TODD, J.

We affirm summary judgment in favor of respondents on appellant Vincent Salazar’s claim for commissions on the transfer of Internet and Web-hosting services to respondents from AT&T Corp. The trial court correctly found that the transaction was the sale of a business opportunity and that under Business and Professions Code section 10131, subdivision (a), Salazar was required to be licensed as a broker in order to recover compensation for arranging the sale or acquisition of this business.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Complaint

Salazar, individually and doing business…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping CenterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Johnson v. City of Loma LindaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
  4. Ginns v. SavageCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
  5. Pool v. City of OaklandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1986

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Nein v. HostPro, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2009
  2. Carbon Crest LLC v. Tencue Productions, LLCDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2022
  3. Khan Development Co. v. Bral CA2/5California Court of Appeal · 2014

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

Powered by the Exa API