Legal Opinion

Sanowicz v. Bacal

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 26, 2015No. B252962PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

GOODMAN, J. *

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Hillel Sanowicz (Sanowicz) and defendant Ben Bacal (Bocal) are licensed real estate salespersons. Sanowicz alleges that he and Bacal agreed to share commissions earned by either of them on certain sales of real property, but that Bacal breached that agreement. Sanowicz sued both Bacal and Sotheby’s International Realty, Inc. (Sotheby’s), dismissing the latter shortly after filing suit. This appeal is from the judgment entered by the trial court sustaining without leave to amend Bacal’s general demurrer to Sanowicz’s first amended complaint. We hold…

2Cases cited49 opinions

  1. Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Schifando v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
  3. Zelig v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
  4. McCall v. PacifiCare of California, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2001
  5. Common Cause v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Voris v. LampertCalifornia Supreme Court · 2019
  2. Julian v. Mission Community HospitalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
  3. Southern California Gas Co. v. FlanneryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
  4. Babbitt v. Superior Court of Los Angeles CountyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
  5. Minnick v. Auto. Creations, Inc., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017

12 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