Griffith v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage
Plaintiff and appellant Marshall S. Griffith, a real estate agent, worked as an independent contractor in a brokerage office owned by defendant and respondent Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company. Plaintiff filed a purported class action on behalf of all real estate agents in such a relationship with defendant for unfair competition (Unfair Competition Law (UCL); Bus. & Prof. Code, §17200 et seq.) based on fraud and unlawful conduct, and for fraudulent inducement and mistake. The claim underlying all of these causes of action is that as part of plaintiff’s independent contractor agreement defendant required him to pay a fee for a legal assistance program (LAP) that included defense and indemnity provisions. Plaintiff claims defendant represented the LAP was errors and omissions insurance and in fact it was, which defendant was not licensed to sell.
Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment in defendant’s favor, contending the court erred when it found the LAP was not insurance and that he could not recover on his fraud counts. We hold the court correctly granted summary judgment and affirm.
Defendant filed a request that we take judicial notice of a similar case plaintiff’s counsel filed in San Francisco, now on appeal from a summary judgment in favor of a wholly owned subsidiary of defendant. It claims that action is relevant to the one before us and judicial notice is required to prevent inconsistent results. But that case is not binding on us and is not pertinent to our analysis or ultimate decision in the case before us. Moreover, it is not in the trial court record. We deny the request.
Comments on Griffith v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage