THOMSON REUTERS

Todd A. Wolfe
October 26,2012
Wade W. Poulson
Law Offices of Wade W. Poulson
591 Cami no de l a Rei na, Sui te #1 100
San Di ego, CA 92108
Re: Bob Baker Automotive v. Chrysler Group LLC
Dear Mr. Poul son:
Trials Digest published
a case report on Bob Baker Automotive v.
Chrysler Group LLC in the enclosecl issue of TRTALS Drceslo.
tsee
case
cite 43 TD 15'n 6 for the report on
your
case.
Thank you for helping make Trials Digest the comprehensive source for
California civil trial resulis and beyond. Enclosed is a
questionnaire
form
to use in reporting other cases you have recently handled in rny state.
We accept reports on
jury
trials, bench trials, settlements, binding
arbitrations, etc., whether litigated in state court, federal court or extra-
judicially.
You can also submit case information using our online form at
http://west.thomson.com/trialsdigesVl'orm.aspx or submit case info in your
own formai by fax (415-344-4950),
e-mail
(trialsdigest@thomsorr.com),
or
mail: Trials Digest, a ThomsonMest business, 425 Market Sitreet, 4n
Floor. San Francisco. CA 94105.
Sincerely,
7' /
Todd A. Wolfe
enct .
Wesi, a Thomson Reuters blsiness 41544-3952
425f,,|a*elstreet,4bFloor todci.$olie@ihomsonreuters,com
San Francisco, CA 941 05
Tr i al Repor t s
Gullen, Rossi, Hamerslough, Reischl & Chuck, San
Jose.
Steven M. Mcclean, Caswell, Bell & Hillison, Fresno.
Defendant: C. Russell Georgeson, Georgeson &
Belardinelli, Fresno. Richard A. Belardinelli, Georgeson &
Belardinelli, Fresno. Timothy L. Thompson, Mccormicl!
Barstow, Sheppard, wayte & Caruth, Fresno. Adam B.
Stirup, Mccormick, Barstow Shepparq Walte & Carruth,
Fresno.
FAcrs/CoMrMrIoNs
According to court records: On Aug. 22,z0oz, defendant
River View d/b/a River View Shopping Center and plaintiff
Fresno Flex Inc. entered into a lease agreement for property
located on North Fort Washington in Fresno, Calif. On
A1Jg. ZZ, ZOOZ, plaintiff lldward Connors entered into a
guaranty of the lease on behalf of plaintiff Fresno Fle& de-
fendant claimed. Plaintiffs leased the premises in order to
operate a Gold's Gym in the North Fresno shopping center.
Plaintiffs alleged defendants River View and Dewayne
Zinkin breached the cornmercial lease by unreasonably
withholding consent to an assignment of the lease and in-
terfered with plaintiff Frcsno Flex's contract of sale of its
gym business to a third parry Plaintiffs claimed defendants
demanded a second guaranty from the principal of the pur-
chasing company, in addition to plaintiff Connor's
Suaran-
ty, which would remain in effect.
Defendant Rivr View filed a separate lawsuit, which was
consolidated with plaintiffs' case, and alleged plaintiffs
breached the lease by assigning their dghts, duties and
obligations in the lease to SSRC-Woodward Park LLCwith-
out pdor wdtten consent; refused to conduct business of a
health club onthe lease premises; failed to pay the mini-
mum rent; and misrepresented to defendant the intent and
effect of plaintiffs' business relationship with SSRC-
Woodward Park. Defendant also alleged plaintiffs convert-
ed fixtures and improvements by removing them from the
property. Defendant claimed plaintiffs conmitted fraud by
representing to defendant that if defendant would set aside
its unlawful detainer
iudgment,
SSRC-Woodward Park
would enter into negotiations with defendant and enter in-
to an assigrment with Fresno llex with a guaranty by
Robert Mitchell in favol ofdefendant, even though plain-
tiffs knew SSRC-Woodward Park had aheady withdrawn
from the contract with no intentions of resuming negotia-
tions. Next, defendant Llleged promissory estoppel.
Finallt defendant claimed plaintiff Conno$ transfered
his interest in real property in Rancho Mirage, Calif., to
cross-defendantsJames, Tom and Chuck Conne6 without
adequate consideration to prevent defendant Irom being
able to collect from cross-defendant/Dlaintiff Conners.
CLAIMED INJURIES
NA
Submi t Your Cases at w e st . t homson. com/ t ri al s di gest / f orm. 4s
p
Cranrno Dauacns
Accordir.lg to court records: Cross-claimant: $382,000
breach ofcontmct; $20,000
conversion. Pursuant to a stiP-
ulation, the court entered
judgment in favo:: ofcross-corn-
plainant River View against cross-defendants Fresno Flex
and Conno$ in the amount of $66,154.
The court also
awarded cross-complainant and defendant Connors fees
and costs in the amount of $950,000.
SETTLEMENT D$cussloNs
Not reported.
EXPERTS
Not reported.
CoMMENTS
According to court records: The case was cousolidated with
10CECGOO760.
I
43 TD
' I 5TH
6
Dealers[rip franchisee seeks
reimbursement for warranty repairs
CoNTRACrs
Breach
BustNfiss ORGANTZATToNS
Franchise
No C0URT/UNFILED SETTLEMENT
Bob Baker Automotive v. Chrysler Group.LIC, Docket number:
PR23091 1.
Judge: Jarold
Prod. Trial t'?e: Settlement.
Settlement date: 1219/201 1.
SETTr-EMENT $62,OOO
After three days of trial before an Administrative law
Judge,
defendant agreed to settle the case by paying plain-
tiff $62,000 in exchange for dismissal of the action.
CouNsEL
PlaintiJf: Wade W Poulson, Law Offices oflvade w.
Poulson, San Diego.
Defendant: Thomas S. Bishoff, Dykema, Detroit, MI.
FAcrs /CoNTENTToNS
According to plaintiff: Plaintiff Bob Baker Automotive Inc.
alleged defendant Chrysler Group LLC failed to honor its
agreement to reimburse plaintiff, its franchisee dealer, on
over 200 vehicles repaired by the dealership pursuant to de-
fendant's waranties.
Defendant argued it was not required to reirnburse the
dealership for wafanty work because repair orde6 were
not signed by a second manager at the dealership even
though each repair order documented the repairs approved
and signed off by each customer pdor to work performed.
{
t
8 TRIAISDIGEST October29,2072 O 201 2 Thormon Reuters. Reproduction info: Copydght Clearance Ctr 978-750-8400, copyright.com
CLAIMED INJURIES
Not rcported.
CLAIMED DAMAGES
According to plaintiff: $86,068
warranty reimburement
monl es.
SE r-TLEMENT DIscussIoNs
Not reported.
EXPERTS
Not reported.
43 TD I sTH 7
Assignees claiim right to indemnity for
attorney fees under escrow contract
CoNTRAcrs
Breach/Indennity
REAL PRoPERTY
Purchase-Sale
VENTURA CoUNTY SUPERIOR CoURT
Scqrborough v. Kellal, Docket number: 56201000365307.
Judge:
HenryJ. Walsh. Trial type: Bench. Verdict/Judgment
date:1l l 17 /2011-
DEcrsroN: $1,588
The court issued a minute order in favor of defendants' mo-
tion for
iudgment
on the pleadings. The court stated the is-
sue was rvhether the clause in the agreement was restricted
to litigation involving the operation ofthe esclow or
whether it applied to litigation involving First Ameican
beyond the scope ofthe escrow. The coud found, taken as
whole, it was clear the paragaph's intended scope was
defining the rights and obligations of the parties in the
event that conflicting demands or claims arose concerning
the escrow. The court continued that any ambiguity should
be construed against plaintiffs' assignor, First Amedcan.
The court noted that in this case the disputebetween
Scarborough and Kellar related to the issue oftitle and im-
proper description of the property and there was no allega-
tion that the escrow itselfwas mismanaged.
The court entered
judgrnent
for defendants and otdered de-
fendants were to recoeer costs from plaintiffs in the
amount of $ 1,588.
CouNsEL
Plaintiff; Malcolm R.
'fator,
Law Offices of Malcolm R.
Tator, Ventura.
Cont r ac t s
Defen.dant: Leslie A. McAdam, Ferguson, Case, OII &
Pate$on, Ventwa, Robert B. EnSland, Ferguson, Case, Orr
& Pate$on, Ventura.
FAc'rs/CoNrENnoNs
According to cout records: In 2002, defendant siblings
Ma lyn Kellar andJohn Morter, as co-trustees of the
Moter Trust, sold residential propertylocated on Mound
Avenue in Ventua, Calif., to plaintiffs Dale andJanet
Scarborough. First Amedcan Title Co. reportedly acted as
the escrow officer and title company for the sale. As part of
the escrow First Amedcan apparently sent an "Escrow
General Provisions" document, which contained an in-
demn ity provision whereby if an action was brought in-
volving the escrow defendants agreed to hold First
American harmless against liabilities, damaSes and costs
including reasonable attomey fees.
In 2005, the Scarboroughs sued defendants in ttreir capaci-
ties as co-trustees of the Morter Trust forvarious claims of
misrepresentation dated to the sale. Defendant Kellar, in
her individual capacity, filed a second amended cross-com-
plaint naming First Amedcan and others. In 2007 Fi6t
American prevailed on the cross-complaint against defen-
dant Kellar at a cost of $161,619. Defendants reportedly
never indemnified Fi$t Amedcan and on Dec. 31, 2009.
Fi$t Amedcan assigned its claim to plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs filed action for indemnity against both the
MorterTrust and defendants individually to recover FiISt
Amedcan's fees and costs expended in the pdor litigation.
Plaintiffs also claimed constructive trust against defen-
dants individually, for reportedly taking and accepting
funds ftom the MorterTrust with notice of Fi$t American's
dghts to indemnity.
Defendants argued the First Amedcan escrow contGct did
not allow Filst American to recover attorney fees for any ac-
tivity outside its role ofbeing an escow holder. Therefore,
defendants asserted there was nothing to assign to plain-
tiffs to recover as assignees in the action.
CLAIidED INJURIES
NA
CLAI,,,ED DAMAGES
According to court records: $161,619 Fi$t Amedcan's at-
torney fees and costs for prevailing on cross-complaint.
SETTT.EMSNT DrscussroNs
Not rcported.
EXPERTS
Not rcpolted.
CoMl\.IENTS
According to court records: The complaint was filedJan. 8,
zolo.
O 2012 Thomson Reuters. Reproduction info: Coptright Clearance Ctr 978-750-8400, copyright.com OC1ObCT29,ZO12 TRIALSDIGEST 9