The Inconsistent Rulings Could Have Resulted In Inconsistent Remedies – A Practical Consideration
“The court, in a thorny litigation matter over technology licensing and investment fraud, denied a motion to compel arbitration of the issues arising under a cross-complaint. It held that there was an apparent risk of conflicting rulings between an arbitration decision on the cross-complaint and a judgment on the complaint. Moving party and cross-defendant CleanTech Biofuels, Inc. appeals. We affirm. The risk of conflicting rulings is clear.” Clean Conversion Technologies, Inc. v. Cleantech Biofuels, Inc., Case No. G046589 (4th Dist. Div. 3 March 5, 2013) (Moore, J., author 3:0) (unpublished).
Thorny. J.J. Harrison, photographer. Wikimedia Commons GNU License.
The interesting twist to this case is that the inconsistent rulings would not necessarily have led to any difference in the amount of damages, but rather to different practical outcomes, one of which would have made a levy impossible. One scenario could have led to a finding of fraudulent conveyance by a sublicensor, and the voiding of the sublicense, vesting the license rights in the sublicensor/judgment debtor and making them subject to levy. Another scenario could have led to a finding that the transfer of license rights from sublicensor to sublicensee was not authorized by the licensor, allowing the licensor to terminate its license, and thus leaving the rights with the licensor who was not subject to attachment.
Comments