legal news


Register | Forgot Password

Gal v. Panto USA
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.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale