M&A due diligence checklist
Updated on Mar 31, 2021
View more like this | Visit SOUTH DENNIS, NJ | Contact Simon Hopes
Defendant sought review of a decision of the Superior Court of San Diego County (California), which denied his motion for judgment based on a statute of limitations defense in plaintiff's suit alleging fraud.
Plaintiff sued defendant for fraud regarding certain real estate investments and other business dealings. Plaintiff alleged that defendant threatened to have him deported to his native Iraq if plaintiff did anything about the investments. Defendant M&A due diligence checklist argued that plaintiff's suit was barred by the statute of limitations. The reviewing court found that defendant was not entitled to the statute of limitations as a defense. Under appropriate circumstances equitable estoppel will preclude a defendant from pleading the bar of the statute of limitations where the plaintiff was induced to refrain from bringing a timely action by the fraud, misrepresentation, or deceptions of defendant. Here, defendant could not be permitted to wrongfully cause a delay in the filing of plaintiff's lawsuit and, at the same time, seek to benefit from such delay.
A decision that denied defendant's motion for judgment based on a statute of limitations defense in plaintiff's suit alleging fraud was affirmed because defendant was estopped from asserting a statute of limitations defense when his threats caused the delay.
Appellant Board of Dental Examiners sought review of an order from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) granting summary judgment in favor of respondent dentist, determining that under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 1680, the use by respondent of a picture of his own face in his advertising in a visual medium was not unprofessional conduct.
Respondent dentist used a picture of his own face in advertising his services. Appellant Board of Dental Examiners declared that such advertisement constituted unprofessional conduct in view of the language of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 1680(n). The trial court granted respondent's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the court found that § 1680(n) defined unprofessional conduct as including the use of advertising containing as a part thereof the representation of a tooth, teeth, bridgework, or any portion of the human head. The court noted that an examination of legislative intent was necessary to determine the issue. To that end, the court noted that a bill's author's statement of its purpose, when contemporaneous, served much the same function as a committee report on the bill. Such a statement, even though non-contemporaneous, was admissible because it constituted some indication of the probable intent of the legislature. Because the comments indicated that the use of the face of a dentist for advertising purposes was not intended to fall within the purview of § 1680(n), the order granting summary judgment in favor of respondent was affirmed as proper.
The order granting summary judgment in favor of respondent dentist was affirmed because an examination of legislative intent indicated that the use of a dentist's face for advertising purposes was not included within the definition of unprofessional conduct.