Plaintiff purchaser sought review of a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, which denied the purchaser restitution of any part of his down payment made to defendant seller with regard to the purchase of two lots and found that the purchaser’s breach of contract was willful.
The purchaser signed an agreement to buy two of the seller’s lots. The escrow instructions stated that the lots had to be free of encumbrances. The purchaser repudiated the agreement because of easements, and the property was sold to another buyer. Later, the purchaser indicated a willingness to purchase the lots and filed a suit for specific performance. The trial court entered a judgment for the seller because the purchaser’s breach was willful, and the trial court denied the purchaser’s request to recover his deposit under Cal. Civ. Code § 3275. On appeal, the purchaser contended that he was due notice to perform within a reasonable time after the closing date. The seller argued that the purchaser’s repudiation was a total breach of contract excusing him from performance. The court held that because the purchaser’s letter indicating a willingness to by the lots contained a condition that he had no right to impose, his repudiation was not withdrawn. The court reversed the decision insofar as it denied the purchaser restitution of part of his down payment for unjust enrichment purposes, directing the trial court to retry the issue of the amount. The appellant and respondent through their counsel California class action lawyer submits their briefs to the court.
The court affirmed the trial court’s determination that the purchaser had willfully breached the parties’ contract but denied specific performance or damages because the buyer was not harmed by the breach. The court reversed the trial court’s denial of restitution of the down payment and directed the trial court to retry the issue of the amount to which the purchaser was entitled.
Plaintiff employees sued defendant employer, a provider of respiratory services, to recover unpaid compensation. Plaintiffs sought compensation for the on-call time spent resolving customer questions by phone, and for all the time they were on call, even when not responding to customer calls. The Orange County Superior Court, California, entered judgment for the employer. Plaintiffs appealed.
The instant court concluded that the trial court did not err in granting the employer’s motions for summary adjudication on plaintiffs’ statutory claim for failure to pay wages. The employer met its initial burden on the statutory claim, while plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to establish a triable issue of material fact. Plaintiffs were incorrect when they argued that they were entitled to overtime wages for the entire time they were on call during evenings and weekends waiting for patient calls, but when they were not actually responding to pages telephonically or in person. The following causes of action survived: (1) plaintiffs’ claim alleging that the employer failed to furnish itemized statements in violation of Lab. Code, § 226; (2) plaintiffs’ claim alleging that the employer failed to pay wages upon termination of employment in violation of Lab. Code, § 203; and (3) plaintiffs’ claim alleging that the employer violated California’s unfair competition law. The trial court properly granted summary adjudication of plaintiffs’ claim for breach of an implied-in-fact contract, but it erred in granting summary adjudication of their promissory estoppel claim.
The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. An order granting summary adjudication of plaintiffs’ statutory overtime claim was reversed. An order sustaining the employer’s demurrer to plaintiffs’ breach of express contract claim was also reversed. An order granting summary adjudication of plaintiffs’ claims for failure to pay wages in violation of a wage order and for breach of implied-in-fact contract was affirmed.