Blog« back to blog homeSubscribe to RSS feed
Month: June, 2020
Early Sullivan Prevails in Breach of Contract/Bad Faith Case for Client Stewart Title Guaranty Company
Category: News, Results | Monday, June 29th, 2020 | Comments Off on Early Sullivan Prevails in Breach of Contract/Bad Faith Case for Client Stewart Title Guaranty Company
Sophia Lau recently prevailed on appeal in Ifeoma Ukoha v. Provident Title Company, et al., a breach of contract/bad faith case, on behalf of client Stewart Title Guaranty Company (“STGC”). Plaintiff Ifeoma Ukoha purchased an apartment building that was later lost to foreclosure due to the seller’s misappropriation of Ukoha’s mortgage payments. In her first amended complaint, Ukoha asserted breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, concealment, promissory fraud, and violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200/unfair competition.
Ukoha alleged that STGC was effectively a long-time business partner of the seller, whose other properties were embroiled in civil and criminal litigation, and STGC should have informed Ukoha of the risk of purchasing the subject property because of the seller’s bad business practices. Ukoha sued both the underwritten title company, Provident Title Company, Inc. (“Provident”), and the title insurer, STGC, alleging collusion with the seller. The trial court sustained both STGC’s and Provident’s demurrers without leave to amend on the grounds that the post-policy foreclosure was not a title defect, and the title companies owed no duty of disclosure to Ukoha.
The California Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court and stated that a title insurance company does not owe the insured any duty of disclosure outside the policy. In affirming the judgment, the appellate court held that “[b]ecause Ukoha alleged no facts indicating she had any viable cause of action, defendants’ demurrers were properly sustained. Because she offers no alternate, cognizable theory on appeal, nor any indication that she could successfully amend, and none appearing from the record, leave to amend was properly denied.”
Bryan Sullivan Writes on Sherlock Holmes Intellectual Property Lawsuit for Forbes
Category: News, Publications | Wednesday, June 24th, 2020 | Comments Off on Bryan Sullivan Writes on Sherlock Holmes Intellectual Property Lawsuit for Forbes
Bryan Sullivan’s article “‘Enola Holmes’ Netflix Movie At The Center Of New Copyright, Trademark Infringement Lawsuit By Sir Arthur Conan Doyle Estate” was published on Forbes on June 24, 2020. In the article, Bryan discusses some of the history surrounding the Sherlock Holmes properties in question, and the decisions that laid the groundwork for this case.
Click to read the full article:
Bryan Sullivan Writes on Morals Clauses and the First Amendment for Forbes
Category: News, Publications | Monday, June 22nd, 2020 | Comments Off on Bryan Sullivan Writes on Morals Clauses and the First Amendment for Forbes
Bryan Sullivan’s article “Morals Clauses And The First Amendment In The Social Media Age: Freedom Of Speech Does Not Mean Freedom From Consequences” was published on Forbes on June 22, 2020. In the article, Bryan discusses the importance of morals clauses and the question of First Amendment protections of free speech afforded by the Constitution.
Click to read the full article:
Peter Scott Named 2020 Southern California “Rising Stars” by Super Lawyers
Category: Awards | Tuesday, June 9th, 2020 | Comments Off on Peter Scott Named 2020 Southern California “Rising Stars” by Super Lawyers
The firm is pleased to announce that Peter Scott has been selected by Thomson Reuters as a 2020 Southern California “Super Lawyers” Rising Star. The “Rising Stars” distinction honors attorneys under the age of 40 in the Southern California region who earned the highest point totals in the “Rising Stars” nomination, research and blue ribbon review process.