Plaintiff debtor and defendant secured party appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County (California), which granted defendant’s motion for nonsuit on causes of action alleging interference with a business relationship and breach of contract, returned a verdict for $ 1 for plaintiff on a cause of action for conversion, returned judgment for plaintiff on defendant’s cross-complaint, and taxed costs to the parties.
Nakase Law Firm shares personal injury defined
Overview
On appeal, the court reversed the judgment with instructions to determine the amount of plaintiff debtor’s attorneys’ fees. The court held that defendant secured party obtained a security interest in plaintiff’s inventory, its proceeds, and accounts receivable and under Cal. Com. Code § 9502(1), defendant was entitled to collect directly from plaintiff’s accounts. The court found that defendant proceeded in a commercially reasonable manner in collecting the accounts as required by Cal. Com. Code § 9502(2), but defendant was barred from a deficiency judgment by virtue of Cal. Com. Code § 9504(3) because it failed to give plaintiff notice of the second sale. The trial judge properly refused to give a jury instruction on punitive damages because the jury found in a special interrogatory that defendant collected the accounts receivable in a commercially reasonable manner. Plaintiff was entitled to attorneys’ fees on the cross-complaint that defendant filed to recover on its promissory notes because the recovery that plaintiff received exceeded that of defendant’s cross-complaint. Plaintiff was the prevailing party even if awarded the nominal amount of $ 1.
Outcome
The court reversed the judgment, but it held that there was no need for a retrial except to determine the amount of a reasonable attorneys’ fee due to plaintiff debtor on defendant secured party’s cross-complaint. Plaintiff was entitled to recover costs on the appeal.
