Bourhis v. Lord
153 Cal. Rptr. 3d 510
Cal.2013Background
- Brown Eyed Girl, Inc. had its corporate powers suspended for nonpayment of taxes.
- Judgment entered against defendants; notices of appeal filed by Brown Eyed Girl, Inc. while suspended.
- Revival certificate issued December 8, 2011, after some deadlines had expired.
- Court of Appeal denied motions to strike/dismiss; relied on Rooney and Peacock Hill to allow revival to validate appeals.
- This Court reaffirmed Rooney and Peacock Hill and declined to overrule them under stare decisis.
- Statutory framework allows reinstatement via certificate of revivor, but with potential prejudice to accrued rights
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does revival after the appeal deadline retroactively validate notices filed during suspension? | Brown Eyed Girl argues revival validates prior notices. | Defendants argue revival cannot cure untimely, invalid notices after deadline. | Yes; Rooney and Peacock Hill control; revival retroactively validates. |
| Is the appeal time jurisdictionally fixed, and can later reinstatement create jurisdiction? | Timely notices remained valid if later revived. | Jurisdiction accrues only with a valid timely notice; revival cannot create jurisdiction. | Timeliness preserved by retroactive revival; courts may proceed. |
| Should Rooney and Peacock Hill be overruled to require timely validity of notices irrespective of revival? | Overruling would destabilize long-standing practice. | Overruling would restore stricter rule against revived notices. | No overruling; longstanding precedent retained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rooney v. Vermont Investment Corp., 10 Cal.3d 351 (Cal. 1973) (revival validates procedural steps and permits appeal when revival occurs after suspension)
- Peacock Hill Assn. v. Peacock Lagoon Constr. Co., 8 Cal.3d 369 (Cal. 1972) (revival of suspended corporation may validate prior actions and permits appeal)
- ABA Recovery Services, Inc. v. Konold, 198 Cal.App.3d 720 (Cal. App. Dist. 1) (discusses tension between statutes of limitations and revival rules)
- Traub Co. v. Coffee Break Service, Inc., 66 Cal.2d 368 (Cal. 1967) (cited regarding revival of corporate status and action validity)
- Schwartz v. Magyar House, Inc., 168 Cal.App.2d 182 (Cal. Dist. 2 1959) (relevance to rights accrued and revival effects)
- Diverco Constructors, Inc. v. Wilstein, 4 Cal.App.3d 6 (Cal. Dist. 3 1970) (cited in related revival context)