Business lawsuit
Plaintiff investor challenged the decision of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, which found for defendants. Plaintiff had sued to rescind a limited partnership agreement, in which as a limited partner he had invested in a film.
Plaintiff investor had sued to rescind a limited partnership agreement, in which as a limited partner he had invested in defendants' film. Plaintiff appealed the adverse jury verdict and asserted as reversible error the insufficiency of the evidence, the nonsuit on plaintiff's mismanagement cause of action, the jury instructions on failure of consideration, and the inconsistency of the jury's special verdict and its general verdict. The court affirmed the judgement of the trial court. No evidence showed that defendants' decisions and efforts failed to conform to the general duty of care demanded of an ordinarily prudent person in like position under similar circumstances. The trial business lawsuitcourt correctly granted a nonsuit on the mismanagement cause of action. The court's jury instructions were correct. The court concluded that the special verdict was consistent with the general verdict. Because at least nine jurors voted against plaintiff on a key element in each cause of action the court found no material confusion in the jury's verdict.
The court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, and affirmed the jury's special verdict. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict. Defendants were not guilty of mismanagement under the business judgment rule. The instructions given the jury about failure of consideration were correct. The special verdict returned by the jury was consistent with its findings and did not indicate jury confusion.
Petitioner doctor sought a writ prohibiting respondent Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) from proceeding with a trial in which he was charged with seven counts of violating Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11912. He claimed that writing prescriptions for dangerous drugs was different from selling or furnishing them as prohibited in the statute.
Petitioner doctor was charged with seven counts of violation of Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11912 after undercover officers were given prescriptions for dangerous drugs. Petitioner sought a writ of mandate, arguing that respondent superior court should not permit the case to go to trial. Granting the writ, the court explained that petitioner should not have been charged under § 11912 because writing a prescription was not covered by its prohibitions. The court decided that conduct, or misconduct, specifically regulated by Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 4210 et seq. was not meant to have been governed by Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11912. The legislature had no intention of punishing the prescription of a dangerous drug without a medical examination, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2399.5, as a sale or even offer of sale of a dangerous drug under § 11912. The court added that the Business and Professions Code was the proper statute for the state's use in the matter.
The court granted petitioner doctor's request for a writ of mandate to stop his prosecution under the Health and Safety Code for providing prescriptions for dangerous drugs without any medical examination. The court explained that writing a prescription was not an activity covered by that code. It added that the state could have pursued an action under the Business and Professions Code.