Appellant physician sought review of a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California) that denied the physician’s request for a writ of mandate to compel respondent Board of Medical Examiners of the State of California to set aside its decision in a disciplinary proceeding. The board decision effectively dismissed the proceeding against the physician.
The physician became licensed to practice in the state by the board’s issuance of a reciprocity certificate based on the physician’s license in another state in accord with Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2310. After the board initiated disciplinary proceedings against the physician under Cal. Bus. & Prof. ada compliance Code § 2364 and Cal. Gov’t Code § 11503 based on another state’s revocation of the physician’s license to practice in that state, the physician filed a notice of defense under Cal. Gov’t Code § 11506, contending that the accusation did not state any transaction within the legislative jurisdiction of the forum state. The primary licensing state had not proceeded against the physician’s license to practice in that state. Eventually the board adopted the hearing officer’s finding that it would not be in the public interest to take disciplinary action against the physician. In affirming the lower court’s denial of the physician’s request for a writ of mandate, the court noted that the decision of the board culminated in the dismissal of the accusation and the proceedings against the physician, which was a favorable result for the physician.
The court affirmed the judgment that denied the physician’s request for a writ of mandate to set aside the board’s order in a disciplinary proceeding. The court concluded that the board’s decision was entirely favorable to the physician.
Plaintiff broker sought review of an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which sustained defendant client’s demurrer to the broker’s amended complaint without leave to amend. The broker sought to enforce a real estate brokerage contract.
After a broker and his associates negotiated a contract for the sale of land on behalf of the client, the client refused to execute the contract. The broker, on behalf of himself and an associate, filed a suit against the client seeking to enforce the brokerage contract. The court sustained the client’s demurrer to the broker’s amended complaint without leave to amend. On appeal, the court affirmed the superior court’s order holding that the brokerage agreement was illegal pursuant to § 1 of the California Real Estate Brokers’ Act (Act) because one of the broker’s associates had been an attorney and not a licensed real estate broker when the sales contract was negotiated. The court further held that although the Act did not prohibit an attorney’s involvement in real estate transactions in which the attorney acted in a representative capacity, the broker’s amended complaint did not allege the applicability of such exception. Finally, the court held that because the contract was void as to one party, the entire contract was void, and the broker could not enforce any rights under it.
The court affirmed an order of the superior court, which sustained a client’s demurrer to a broker’s amended complaint without leave to amend in the broker’s suit to enforce a real estate brokerage contract.