Campbell v. Lopez

In 1971 Charles Campbell (plaintiff) opened the Charles Campbell Gallery (the gallery), which was located in a building owned by Campbell and his wife. In 2002 Campbell hired Steven Lopez (defendant), and in 2004 Campbell and Lopez formed a partnership to own and manage the gallery. In 2006 Campbell told Lopez that he planned to dissolve the partnership and sell the building in which the gallery was located. During the dissolution process, Campbell discovered that Lopez had placed a provision in the gallery’s lease allowing Lopez to rent the building from Campbell for $1,000 per month. Campbell filed a lawsuit against Lopez in California state court, alleging fraud and seeking to dissolve the partnership. Lopez filed a cross-complaint against Campbell, alleging breach of contract and other causes of action. The parties eventually settled. Under the settlement agreement, Campbell agreed to pay Lopez $50,000 and allow Lopez to operate another gallery, bringing all consigned art and certain gallery furniture with him to his new gallery. Lopez agreed to vacate the building that Campbell owned. Campbell would retain ownership of all art in the gallery that he personally owned. Three months after the parties made the settlement agreement, Campbell moved to enforce the settlement, claiming that Lopez had refused to vacate the building. Lopez explained that he would not leave the building until all artwork that was gallery inventory was appropriately divided between him and Campbell. The trial court granted Campbell’s motion, finding that the settlement agreement properly divided all of the gallery’s artwork and that there was no category of gallery inventory that had not been distributed between the parties. Lopez appealed.