GG&B Defeats Summary Judgment on Appeal, Prevails at Trial
Malcolm Carter Enterprises v. Microsemi Real Estate, Inc., Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 05CC01853

In July 2004, GG&B client, Malcolm Carter Enterprises’ (“Malcolm”), sent Microsemi Real Estate, Inc. (“Microsemi”) a letter from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board contending the letter triggered the 90-day running of the termination of Microsemi's option to purchase commercial property located in Santa Ana (“Property”) under an Option Agreement between the parties. Ninety days passed, Microsemi did not notify Malcolm of its intention to exercise its option, and Malcolm filed a Complaint requesting a judicial determination that Microsemi’s option to purchase the Property had terminated effective October 2004. Microsemi claimed its option period termination was never triggered because Malcolm's letter did not meet the requirements of the Option Agreement, and that its right to purchase thus still existed.

In March 2006, the Honorable Clay M. Smith, granted Microsemi's summary judgment motion against Malcolm, finding Malcolm's letter was not (and could not have been) the letter agreed upon by the parties in the Option Agreement. Malcolm successfully appealed, and in September 2007 the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in favor of Microsemi and ordered that the case proceed to trial.

On December 4, 2008, following a spirited trial led by GG&B’s David Grant and Cindy Chon, the Honorable Franz E. Miller found Malcolm's letter did, in fact, trigger the termination of Microsemi’s option, and that Microsemi no longer held the option to purchase the Property. The trial result was a total victory for Malcolm under both its Complaint and Microsemi's Cross-Complaint.