The ex-wife filed a complaint against multiple

Plaintiff ex-wife appealed a summary judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which was granted in favor of defendants, corporation, ex-husband as president and principal stockholder of the corporation, and director and business advisor of the corporation, in her divorce action seeking certain relief and damages.

The ex-wife filed a complaint against multiple defendants that sought to cancel the property settlement agreement with the ex-husband and to set aside parts of the interlocutory judgment of divorce. The ex-wife requested that corporate stock be adjudged community property, and that she own one-half of it, ADA lawyer Riverside or alternatively that she obtain judgment for compensatory and exemplary damages. The ex-wife challenged the summary judgment rendered for defendants by the superior court, which the court affirmed. The court determined that, although the ex-wife alleged facts at trial to prove that the ex-husband was the corporation’s alter ego, these facts did not justify disregarding the corporation’s separate identity to render it liable to her for damages. The court ruled that the alter ego doctrine only applied to avoid a grave injustice. The court declined to rely on the doctrine of alter ego to make the corporation liable for the ex-husband’s personal obligations. The court found no valid reason to name the corporation as a defendant. The summary judgment of the superior court correctly freed the corporation from the stigma of the fraud claim and the ex-wife’s one million dollar demand.

The court affirmed the summary judgment challenged by the ex-wife from the superior court that was entered for the corporation, the ex-husband, and the stockholder in the divorce action requesting specific remedies and damages.

Petitioner Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control brought a proceeding in prohibition to direct respondent Superior Court of Orange County (California) to vacate an order staying enforcement of a liquor license suspension order issued by the department. The ex parte order was obtained by the real parties in interest, found by the department to have violated laws relating to the sale of liquor to minors.

The department found that the real parties in interest had violated certain provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act relating to the sale of liquor to minors and ordered a license suspension. The real parties in interest filed a petition for writ of mandate in the lower court. The lower court dismissed the petition, but the real parties in interest obtained an ex parte order from another judge to restrain the department from enforcing its suspension order pending an appeal from the order dismissing the petition for writ of mandate. The department sought to have that stay order vacated by writ of prohibition. The court found that, under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 23090.5, the lower court was without jurisdiction to review the final order of the board or to stay enforcement of the suspension order. The court considered the argument of the real parties in interest that § 23090.5 was unconstitutional in that it precluded superior courts from reviewing the validity of an administrative determination. The court rejected the argument because the section did not totally impair the right of judicial review. The court granted the writ of prohibition.

The court granted the peremptory writ of prohibition sought by the department.