Gal v. Panto
Filed 5/15/13 Gal
v. Panto USA CA4/1
California
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or
relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except
as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
LASZLO
GAL et al.,
Plaintiffs and Respondents,
v.
PANTO
USA, INC.,
Defendant and Appellant.
D059582
(Super.
Ct. No. 37-2008-00092714-
CU-BC-CTL)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
County, Steven R. Denton, Judge. Appeal dismissed.
Law
Offices of Sean D. Schwerdtfeger, Sean D. Schwerdtfeger and Justin J. Wieland
for Defendant and Appellant.
Navigato
& Battin, Michael W. Battin and Stephanie S. Sciarani for Plaintiffs and
Respondents.
A
jury found in favor of plaintiffs Laszlo Gal and Agnes Christina Gal (together
the Gals) on their claim for breach of
implied warranty against Panto USA, Inc. (Panto). Panto appeals, claiming the trial court erred
in precluding all evidence regarding a warranty disclaimer in the contract on
the ground the disclaimer was not conspicuous.
(Cal. U. Com. Code, § 2316.) It
also asserts that some of the damages awarded must be stricken.
At
oral argument on this appeal, counsel for Panto informed the court that the
corporate status of his client had been changed to forfeited by the California
Secretary of State. We heard oral
argument, but directed the parties to file letter briefs addressing how this
change impacted the appeal. The parties
have done so.
The
Gals' request for judicial notice is granted.
Panto is a Florida corporation whose corporate status in California has been forfeited.
The powers of a foreign corporation may be forfeited, for failure to pay
certain taxes or file certain tax returns.
(Rev. & Tax. Code, §§ 23301, 23301.5.) During the period of forfeiture, the
corporation may not prosecute or defend an action, or appeal from an adverse
judgment. (Alhambra-Shumway Mines, Inc. v. Alhambra Gold Mine Corp. (1957) 155
Cal.App.2d 46, 49–51.) Accordingly, this
appeal is dismissed.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed. Respondents are to recover their costs on
appeal.
McINTYRE, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
NARES, J.
