Grand Central Recycling v. Universal Waste Systems
Filed 2/24/06 Grand Central Recycling v. Universal Waste Systems
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
GRAND CENTRAL RECYCLING & TRANSFER STATION, INC.,
Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Respondent, v. UNIVERSAL WASTE SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant. | B183110 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC312389) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Richard L. Fruin, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.
Spach, Capaldi & Waggaman, Madison S. Spach, Jr., and Thomas E. Walling for Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant.
Montgomery Law Corp. and Michael B. Montgomery for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Respondent.
_____________________________
The trial court granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings (on a cross-complaint) and denied the cross-complainant's request for leave to amend. We affirm.
FACT
To operate a refuse transfer station in the City of Pomona, Grand Central Recycling & Transfer Station, Inc. wanted to purchase a parcel of industrial land (the Mission Property) but its owners (Mark, Mila, and Jacob Kornwasser) were apparently unwilling to sell to Grand Central. Grand Central therefore entered into an agreement with Lloyd's Material Supply Co., Inc., pursuant to which Lloyd's agreed to acquire the Mission Property for Grand Central in exchange for Grand Central's services. The Kornwassers accepted Lloyd's offer and an escrow was opened, but Lloyd's then refused to close escrow.
Grand Central sued Lloyd's and others, including Universal Waste Systems, Inc. (a competitor which had an existing relationship with the City of Pomona).[1] With regard to Lloyd's, Grand Central sought damages and specific performance. With regard to the City and Universal Waste, Grand Central alleged that the City had attempted to preempt Lloyd's purchase of the Mission Property by threatening Lloyd's with termination of a development agreement Lloyd's had with the City, and that the City wanted to acquire the Mission Property so it could turn it over to Universal Waste.
Universal Waste answered and cross-complained against Grand Central for intentional and negligent interference with contract and prospective economic advantage, and for violations of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. According to Universal Waste, it entered a waste transport and disposal agreement with the City in 1998, and since that time had been searching for appropriate property for the construction of a transfer station. To that end, Universal Waste had revealed confidential information to California Acrylic Industries, Inc. (CAI), an entity allegedly related to Lloyd's, which information Grand Central obtained and used to its advantage by arranging its deal with Lloyd's to purchase the Mission Property before the City could purchase it. When the City learned about Lloyd's effort to purchase the property and Lloyd's alleged use of the confidential information, it â€