Plaintiff, the State of California, sought civil penalties
Saim Khan
Defendants appealed a decision of the Superior Court of San Diego County (California), which issued a temporary injunction based on charges of unfair competition and restraint of trade in violation of the Cartwright Act, Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 16720, 16727 and 16754.5.
Plaintiff, the State of California, sought civil penalties and injunctive relief against defendant mobile home dealers based on charges of unfair competition and restraint of trade in violation of the Cartwright Act, Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 16720, 16727, and 16754.5. The trial court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the conditioning of the rental or lease of sites on the purchase or lease of mobile homes from defendants, or intentionally representing the availability of mobile home park space or displaying as a model home any mobile home except as permitted by law. The Los Angeles ca employment lawyer knows all about labor law of CA.
On appeal, the court affirmed the issuance of the preliminary injunction since the court did not abuse its discretion in finding the tying arrangements raised serious issues of illegal conduct to restrain trade and competition.
The court affirmed the granting of a temporary injunction against defendants based on charges of unfair competition and restraint of trade since the conditioning of mobile home park space on the purchase of a mobile home from a particular dealer raised serious issues of illegal conduct.
Defendant hospital appealed a judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which confirmed an arbitration award of economic damages, emotional distress damages, and punitive damages to plaintiff physician.
The parties disputed their responsibilities for providing and cleaning surgical instruments used by the physician. They entered into a settlement agreement requiring the hospital to furnish instruments to the physician on the same terms and conditions as other medical staff members and not to retaliate against him with regard to his medical staff privileges. After further disputes arose, the hospital suspended the physician's privileges. An arbitrator found that the hospital had violated the settlement agreement. The court held that the arbitrator had not exceeded her powers under Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.2, subd. (a)(4). The arbitrator's reasoning as to the calculation of emotional distress damages was not reviewable. The public policy favoring peer review, as expressed in Bus. & Prof. Code, § 805, subd. (b)(3), 809.1, 809.6, subd. (c), was not implicated because the dispute was unrelated to the physician's competence. Because the arbitration was not state action, constitutional limits on punitive damages did not apply, and the amount awarded was not so clearly excessive as to fall within the limited and exceptional circumstances permitting judicial review of the merits.
The court affirmed the judgment.