Minimum wage San Diego

Posted by Anne Tyner on September 21st, 2021


HOLDINGS: [1]-It was unreasonable to find that a model was not the prevailing party for purposes of attorney fees under Civ. Code, § 3344, where he was awarded 3,000 in actual damages and 0,000 in emotional distress damages based on a business’s unauthorized use of his likeness. The fact that he received substantially less damages than sought did not defeat his status because a complete victory is not required; [2]-The trial court correctly rejected the model’s proposed special jury instruction giving the business the burden to apportion its profits associated with the unauthorized use; the proposed instruction flipped the statutory burden of proof on its head; [3]-It was proper to exclude the model’s proposed expert testimony on damages, in part because it was based on comparing celebrity royalty agreements without any indication the model had the same degree of celebrity.

Outcome: minimum wage San Diego

Judgment affirmed, order reversed.

Procedural Posture

Plaintiff supplier challenged the order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which awarded judgment to defendant dealer, on the supplier\'s claim to recover for the unpaid balance on accounts because the supplier had obtained a judgment against the dealer for the amount due and owing another branch of the supplier and where his second claim was precluded.


The supplier operated two distinct branches, both of which sold fish on account to the dealer. The dealer failed to pay, and one branch of the supplier obtained a judgment for the amount owed that branch. The supplier\'s other branch then filed an action to collect the balance owed that branch. The dealer claimed that a single account existed with the supplier and that, therefore, the supplier\'s second action was barred. The superior court awarded judgment to the dealer. The supplier appealed. The court reversed and found that the second claim was not barred under the prohibition against split claims. The court found that the dealer had the burden to establish that the sales constituted a single account because the defense was an affirmative one. Because the supplier operated his branches independently in his dealings with customers and kept the accounts separate, the dealer\'s liability was under two separate accounts. Because the actions arose on sales from different branches of the supplier at different localities, there was no controlling presumption that they constituted but one account.


The court reversed the order of the superior court, which had awarded judgment to the dealer in the supplier\'s action to collect the unpaid balance on accounts.

Like it? Share it!

Anne Tyner

About the Author

Anne Tyner
Joined: June 1st, 2021
Articles Posted: 18

More by this author