Legal Opinion
Galen v. Mobil Oil Corp.
District Court, C.D. California
Decided March 18, 1996No. CV 95-3686 KMW (RNBx)PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Memorandum of Opinion
WARDLAW, District Judge.
Alleging that Mobil concealed the existence of a sump full of oil field waste and trash on property it sold to Albert Levinson, Levinson’s estate (the “Estate”) sued Mobil. Mobil now moves for summary judgment on the Estate’s rescission, nuisance, trespass, equitable indemnity, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief claims. The rescission and unjust enrichment claims are time-barred. The sales agreement’s express provisions preclude the Estate from making nuisance, trespass, equitable indemnity, and declaratory relief claims. Thus, this Court…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Hobart v. Hobart Estate Co.California Supreme Court · 1945
- Lingsch v. SavageCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- In re Residential Capital, LLCUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 2014
- O'CONNOR v. Boeing North American, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2000
- Otay Land Co. v. U.E. Ltd., L.P., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
- Diamant v. Johnson Controls Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- Otay Land Co. v. U.E. LimitedCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017