What is a Misappropriation of a Client's Settlement Proceeds?

Useful Rulings on Misappropriation of a Client's Settlement Proceeds

Recent Rulings on Misappropriation of a Client's Settlement Proceeds

IN RE: STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA

Status Conference (To Address Scheduling And Other Matters) Per Order Filed 2/7/20) Matter on calendar for Wednesday, March 11, 2020, Line 12, Status Conference (To Address Scheduling And Other Matters) Per Order Filed 2/7/20) Hearing required. All counsel and Mr. Everett are ordered to attend. =(302/EPS) ...

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2020

THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA VS JAMES HARVEY TIPLER, (SBN 80748)

As previously admonished in the August 12, 2019 Minute Order, Defendant is aware that California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113 subdivision (b) mandates that “[t]he memorandum must contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.” (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1113, subd. (b).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT YOUSEFIAN

of a client if there is an unfinished client matter for which no other active member of the State Bar, with the consent of the client, has agreed to assume responsibility.”

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ANTHONY A PATEL VS SONYA BHATIA, ET AL.

fraud, (12) violation of civil rights, and (12) violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200.

  • Hearing

    Dec 31, 2019

ANTHONY A PATEL VS SONYA BHATIA, ET AL.

Similarly, Plaintiff alleges that “one or more Defendants intentionally interfered with the contract between Plaintiff and other individuals,” “particularly his client contracts with his law practice clients.” (FAC, ¶ 42.) Given the foregoing, the court finds the FAC’s allegations insufficient. The FAC does not allege the existence of any specific contract, or that Bhatia knew of the existence of any specific contract.

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2019

THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA VS JAMES HARVEY TIPLER, (SBN 80748)

Rules of Court Rule 3.1113, subdivision (b) mandates that “[t]he memorandum must contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced. (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1113, subd. (b).) The court therefore continued the hearing to August 12, 2019 to allow Defendant to file and serve supplemental papers and supporting evidence to address these deficiencies.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA VS JAMES HARVEY TIPLER, (SBN 80748)

Rules of Court Rule 3.1113, subdivision (b) mandates that “[t]he memorandum must contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced. (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1113, subd. (b).) The court therefore continued the hearing to August 12, 2019 to allow Defendant to file and serve supplemental papers and supporting evidence to address these deficiencies.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Wendy Chang or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA VS JAMES HARVEY TIPLER, (SBN 80748)

Rules of Court Rule 3.1113, subdivision (b): “The memorandum must contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced. (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1113, subd. (b).) Indeed, it is not even possible to determine the relevant legal basis for the requested relief from Plaintiff’s opposition papers, which only cites to Code of Civil Procedure section 116.730.

  • Hearing

    Jun 03, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Wendy Chang

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JAMES C MAXEY VS. ATTY GEN KAMALA D HARRIS

Mandatory appearance of Attorney for Plaintiff or Plaintiff In Pro Per is required. Absent an Appearance for any matter on the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal could result in Dismissal without Prejudice

  • Hearing

    May 30, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

THOMAS LAYTON VS THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

Dunn’s claims that the State Bars’ Chief Trial Counsel and the incoming President of the State Bar were guilty of improprieties. For the guidance of counsel, the Court intends to give broad leeway in the introduction of evidence supportive or not supportive of this “background” claim in both actions. The renewal of this motion has given the Court in opportunity to review the prior proceedings and has therefore assisted the Court in understanding the issues which will be faced in each trial.

  • Hearing

    Apr 03, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SONJA OEHLER VS THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

Plaintiff Sonja Oehler (“Oehler”) served as Executive Assistant to Senator Joseph Dunn, former Executive Director of Defendant State Bar of California (“Defendant”). (TAC ¶ 2.) In July 2014, Oehler provided information concerning misconduct by the State Bar President and State Bar Chief Trial Counsel. (TAC ¶ 17.) The objects of the investigation to which Oehler contributed retaliated in a campaign that resulted in the removal of Joseph Dunn and of those close to him, including Oehler. (TAC ¶ 19.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 03, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT YOUSEFIAN

a client if there is an unfinished client matter for which no other active member of the State Bar, with the consent of the client, has agreed to assume responsibility.”

  • Hearing

    Jan 18, 2019

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA VS VINCENT ENRIQUEZ

Petitioner State Bar of California’s petition for assumption of jurisdiction over the unauthorized law practice of Vincent Enriquez is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2018

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT YOUSEFIAN

a client if there is an unfinished client matter for which no other active member of the State Bar, with the consent of the client, has agreed to assume responsibility.”

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2018

IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT YOUSEFIAN

On January 11, 2018, the Court signed the Permanent Order Assuming Jurisdiction over the Abandoned Client Files of Robert Yousefian. The Court appointed Steven Moawad, Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar, and designees, to, among other things place all files and records of Mr.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2018

THOMAS LAYTON VS THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

The State Bar of California, et al. Case No.: BC615241 Motion: (1) Motion to Consolidate (2) Motion to Reopen Discovery Moving Party: Plaintiff Thomas Layton Responding Party: Defendants The State Bar of California and Carol Madeja Final Form of Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Consolidate is denied. The Motion to Reopen Discovery is denied.

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

IN RE: RANDY SODERSTROM

OSC re: Assumption of jurisdiction over unlawful law practice. No opposition. Application granted. Petitioner State Bar is ordered to submit a proposed order in conformance with is notice of ex parte application in relation to assuming the jurisdiction and control over the law practice of Randy Soderstrom dba Legal Insights, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2018

LOPEZ VS. THE STATE BAR OF CAL

The opposition does not establish that Plaintiff has a probability of prevailing on the merits of the claim. Attorneys' Fees Defendant's request for attorneys' fees in the amount of $5,969.95 is granted. Defendant shall submit a judgment within the next ten days.

  • Hearing

    Jun 28, 2018

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

LOPEZ VS. THE STATE BAR OF CAL

The opposition does not establish that Plaintiff has a probability of prevailing on the merits of the claim. Attorneys' Fees Defendant's request for attorneys' fees in the amount of $5,969.95 is granted. Defendant shall submit a judgment within the next ten days.

  • Hearing

    Jun 28, 2018

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

LOPEZ VS. THE STATE BAR OF CAL

The opposition does not establish that Plaintiff has a probability of prevailing on the merits of the claim. Attorneys' Fees Defendant's request for attorneys' fees in the amount of $5,969.95 is granted. Defendant shall submit a judgment within the next ten days.

  • Hearing

    Jun 28, 2018

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JAMES C MAXEY VS. ATTY GEN KAMALA D HARRIS

Mandatory appearance of Attorney for Plaintiff or Plaintiff In Pro Per is required. Absent an Appearance for any matter on the Order to Show Cause Re: Non-Compliance could result in Dismissal without Prejudice

  • Hearing

    Jun 21, 2018

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

GRAYTON VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA

The demurrer to the complaint, filed by defendants The State Bar of California,[1] Lisa Cummins, Patrick Dixon, and Floyd Chapman is sustained without leave to amend. Preliminary Matters Defendants' request for judicial notice is granted. "A court may take judicial notice of the existence of each document in a court file, but can only take judicial notice of the truth of facts asserted in documents such as orders, findings of fact and conclusions of law, and judgments." Garcia v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 14, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PHILIP B OBBARD VS. STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

(End of part 2 of 3)

  • Hearing

    May 23, 2018

PHILIP B OBBARD VS. STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

Petitioner Philip Obbard Notice Of Hearing On Petition For Writ Of Mandate. (For Tentative Ruling Purposes Only) Part 3 Of 3) Matter on calendar for Wednesday, May 23, 2018, Line 2, Petitioner Philip Obbard Notice Of Hearing On Petition For Writ Of Mandate.

  • Hearing

    May 23, 2018

PHILIP B OBBARD VS. STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

Notice Of Hearing On Petition For Writ Of Mandate Matter on calendar for Wednesday, May 23, 2018, Line 2, PETITIONER PHILIP OBBARD Notice Of Hearing On Petition For Writ Of Mandate. (part 1 of 3) Judge Harold Kahn, who is hearing this matter, discloses that he knows, has worked with and is friends with many attorneys who are now or in the past have been employed by the San Francisco Superior Court, but believes that he is and can be fair and impartial to both sides of this case.

  • Hearing

    May 23, 2018

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 20     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.