Upip online dating
(UPIP) describes itself as a worldwide music publishing company. is consistent with the purpose of the delayed discovery doctrine: a plaintiff, prevented from discovery, should not suffer and a defendant should not profit from the plaintiff's ignorance. Triable Issues of Material Fact Preclude Summary Judgment †II. Schneider stated, in his declaration, that he understood based on the royalty statements UMPG “reported that Mr. Universal Music Publishing Group (UMPG), the named defendant and respondent, describes itself as “a fictitious ‘umbrella’ name for a group of affiliated companies engaged in the business of music publishing, including Universal-Poly Gram International Publishing, Inc.”Plaintiff and appellant, James Weatherly is a songwriter, who continues to reap the financial benefits of his songs through royalties paid by either UPIP or UMPG. Applied here, the right to conduct an audit is not dispositive of diligence where there is evidence that the plaintiff was “hindered” from discovering the breach by the defendant's misrepresentations. The Trial Court Erred in Denying Weatherly Leave To Amend His Cause of Action for Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing †DISPOSITIONThe judgment is reversed. Weatherly's share of all income (including foreign income) was being calculated at 100% of all monies received for the songs he wrote.” Schneider testified consistently in his deposition identifying the “% rcvd” column as showing “that Mr.
Weatherly claims that UMPG improperly calculated his royalty payments and sued UMPG for rescission, an accounting, open book account, breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. That issue was not included in the motion for summary judgment or demurrer, and therefore, we assume only for purposes of this appeal, that UMPG is the Publisher. The provisions of the Agreement relevant to this appeal are as follows:(1) Writer is entitled to “[f]ifty per cent [sic ] (50%) of any and all net sums, after deduction of foreign taxes, actually received (less any costs for collection) by Publisher from sales and uses directly related to subject musical compositions in countries outside of the United States (other than public performance royalties․)”(2) “Writer shall have the right, upon the giving of at least ten (10) days written notice to Publisher, to inspect the books and records of Publisher, insofar as the same concerns Writer, at the expense of Writer, at reasonable times during normal business hours for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of any transaction or entry relating to the accounting of all sums to which Writer may have the right to object ․ but no more than once in any one (1) year period during the term hereof.”(3) “All royalty statements and other accounts rendered by Publisher shall be binding upon Writer and not subject to any objection for any reason, unless such objection is specific and is made in writing, stating the basis thereof, and delivered to Publisher within one (1) year from the date of such statement or account, and Writer shall be barred from maintaining or instituting any suit based on such objection unless such suit is commenced within one (1) year after the date on which Publisher notifies Writer that it denies the validity of the objection.”Royalty Statements Weatherly receives a royalty payment and statement twice a year. W.2d 822, 838 [rejecting an argument that delayed discovery did not apply because the lease in question gave the plaintiff the right to conduct an annual audit].) In this case, Weatherly's argument goes beyond the claim that a prudent person would not have been put on inquiry notice prior to the audit; he argues that he was misled by the royalty statements, specifically the entries of 100% in the (% Rcvd) column. Hashim (9th Cir.2003) 316 F.3d 1032, 1039 (El Pollo Loco, Inc.) [applying California law].) “ ‘The recipient of a fraudulent misrepresentation of fact is justified in relying upon its truth, although he might have ascertained the falsity of the representation had he undertaken an investigation.’ ” (Id. All causes of action arise from the alleged failure by Defendant to pay royalties to Plaintiff. Thus, the 1-year contractual limitations period bars all causes of action.”Weatherly timely appealed. The trial Court Erred in Granting Summary Judgment ***B.