Plaintiff lienholder brought suit against defendants heirs and assignee, seeking to set aside the heirs' transfer of the property upon which the lienholder held a lien. The Superior Court of Sonoma County (California) entered a judgment in favor of the lienholder and denied the heirs and assignor's request for a new trial. The heirs and assignor appealed.

The trial court determined that the hеirs' assignment to the assignee was without consideration. Thе trial court concluded that the heirs' actions constituted a fraud, were void against the lienholder, and should have been set aside. The assignee acquired the property after performing services for the lienholder, who was insolvent at the time. The class action defense attorney examined the evidence and determined that there was no record that could have supported a claim of actual fraud. Furthermore, the court determined that the record did not support constructive fraud under Cal. Civ. Code § 3442. Thus, the court reversed.

The court reversed the trial court's judgment in favor of the lienholder in his action to set aside the heirs' transfer of property to the assignee.

Petitioners, alcohol importers, wholesalers, and retailers, sought a writ of mandate or prohibition ordering respondent Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control not to enforce Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 23672. They argued that the statutory scheme violated the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1 et seq., absent governmental sanction and that it was not within the state action exception to the Sherman Act nor was it authorized under U.S. Const. amend. XXI.

Petitioners, alcohol importers, wholesalers, and retailers, sought a writ of mandate or prohibition ordering respondent Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control not to enforce Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 23672. The court held that § 23672 gave intervenor brand owners unfettered power to restrain competition. It allowed them to forbid others from selling to an importer. Section 23672 was invalid under the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1 et seq. (Act), unless the state action exception or U.S. Const. amend. XXI authorized it. The court held that the statute was not within the exception. There was no state involvement in the statute. No standards were imposed upon intervenors. Under U.S. Const. amend. XXI, the federal commerce power restricted the state's substantial discretion over liquor regulation. Section 23672 had to be reconciled with competing federal interests. The statutory grant of power to private parties to prohibit interstate commerce undermined the Act. The court held that any state interests served by § 23672 were not sufficient to outweigh the federal policies embodied in the Act. The court issued a writ of mandate.

The court issued a writ of mandate to petitioners, alcohol importers, wholesalers, and retailers, holding that the statute was invalid under the Sherman Act because it gave intervenor brand owners the power to restrain competition. The statute was not within the state action exception, and under the amendment, the statute had to be reconciled with federal interests. State interests served by the statute did not outweigh federal policies.