Defendant sought review of a judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which found him guilty by the verdict of a jury of grand theft and various other related crimes, and which denied him a new trial.
Defendant attacked his convictions under the counts charging grand theft, asserting that the thefts charged, being in the nature of obtaining money by false pretenses, required evidence to show that the complaining witnesses parted with their money by reason of defendant’s representations, and the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof. Defendant claimed further that none of his material representations were shown to be false. On appeal, the court affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence showed that defendant was doing business under a fictitious name and that he induced his clients to invest money with him by his misrepresentations that his business was making a tremendous profit when in fact, it was not. The court held that because he represented that he was an active investment business when in fact he was not was sufficient to sustain the convictions. Finally, the court found that the writings used to induce the clients to invest were unambiguous on their terms and therefore admissible. Visit the law firm and discuss the employment law Los Angeles employment lawyers
The court affirmed the convictions and the order denying a new trial.Plaintiff property owners appealed the order of the Superior Court of Fresno County (California), which sustained the demurrer of defendant individuals, who opposed a zoning variance for plaintiffs, based on Cal. Civ. Code § 47, in plaintiffs’ action for fraud, negligence, misrepresentation and mental distress.
Plaintiff property owners sought a zoning variance in order to convert a portion of their property into a beauty salon. The permit was granted but later retracted, and plaintiffs were ordered to reconvert the premises to residential use. Plaintiffs brought an action for fraud, negligence, misrepresentation and mental distress against defendant individuals, all of whom opposed a zoning variance for plaintiffs, based on their submission of a false or forged building permit to the city. The lower court sustained defendants’ demurrer, and the court affirmed. The court determined that the absolute privilege of Cal. Civ. Code § 47 that protected conduct and statements made during litigation applied to defendants’ actions. The court held that the criminal act of forgery did not destroy the privilege, and that actions taken by defendants in preparation of the proceedings before the city council and planning commission were covered, as well as activities during the proceedings themselves. The court also found that the allegation of conspiracy among defendants as to the privileged acts did not remove the privilege.
The court affirmed the judgment that sustained the demurrer of defendant individuals, all of whom opposed a zoning variance for plaintiff property owners, in plaintiffs’ action for fraud, negligence, misrepresentation and mental distress, because defendants’ conduct was related to the proceedings before the city council and planning commission, and qualified as a privileged publication under the statute.