 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
VELUR WINS OVER ROLAND! Years of litigation between competitors Velur Land Investments II, Inc. and Roland Land Investment Company, Inc. finally came to an end August 12, 2002 when the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles entered judgment in favor of Velur Land Investments II, Inc. and against Roland Land Investment Company, Inc. In April 1996, Roland Land Investment Company, Inc. and related entities California Resources Enterprises, Inc., Roland Company, Roland Heights Development company, Inc., Roland Universal Land Company, Inc., Roland Enterprises, and Consolidated Land Associates (hereafter collectively referred to as "Roland"), all sued Velur Land Investments II, Inc. and its related entities and individuals Luvre Properties II, Inc., Velur Investments, Inc. Luvre Properties, Inc., Golden State Resources, Inc., Velur Properties, Inc. (hereafter collectively referred to as "Velur") for libel, slander, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, and inducing breach of contract. Although the Superior Court initially ruled in favor of Roland following a jury trial, the Court of Appeal later stepped in and clearly and decisively stated that the law was not as Roland had long been arguing. The Court of Appeal was of the opinion that the case never should have made it to trial, and reversed the judgment in favor of the Velur, stating: "Our review of the record indicates there is no substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict. Velur's statements and assertions were not defamatory. They were, instead, nonactionable opinions based on undisputed and fully disclosed facts. We conclude the trial court erred in denying Velur's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and that the judgment holding Velur liable for defamation must be reversed." Despite the very unambiguous Opinion from the Court of Appeal, Roland persisted in arguing their incorrect versions of the facts and the law, filing a Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court in April 2002. Review was denied by the California Supreme Court, and the Court of Appeal issued its Remittitur on June 13, 2002. Eskridge Law represented Velur in various post-trial matters and, on August 12, 2002 - six years and four months after the case was initially filed by Roland, the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles finally entered Judgment in favor of Velur. A few weeks later, the Superior Court issued an Order that Roland pay Velur's costs of suit, which it did. The Superior Court Judgment in favor of Velur may be viewed in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. LC036611. The Court of Appeal Opinion and Remittitur can be found in California Court of Appeal Case No. B131086, and can be viewed on LexisNexis at 2002 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4763. Eskridge Law, Attorneys at Law, may be contacted by phone (310/792-7021), by fax (310/792-7022) or by e-mail (geskridge@ealaw.net). Please visit our web site at www.ealaw.net or www.employmentattorneys.net.
|
||||||||||||||||
