What is Puffing in Negotiations?

Useful Rulings on Puffing in Negotiations

Recent Rulings on Puffing in Negotiations

JOSE DOMINGO JIMENEZ VS. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE PARTNERS INC ET AL

Such a response violates an attorney's ethical duty under Bus & Prof Code §6068(d) to act truthfully and, therefore, constitutes bad faith. See Bihun v. AT&T Info. Sys. (1993) 13 CA4th 976, 991. Defendant to provide a verified response and produce documents no later than March 27, 2020. Response to be in compliance with C.C.P. §§2031.210-240.

  • Hearing

HELEN THERESA GIVENS V. ROY ANTHONY GIVENS, ET AL.

Conduct, rule 5-200(B)-(D).) Similarly, the Judges of the Santa Clara County Superior Court have adopted by standing order the Santa Clara County Bar Association’s Code of Professionalism. As a result, the Court expects attorneys to comport themselves in accordance with the guidelines of professionalism set forth therein including: “written materials submitted to the court should always be factual...” (SCCBA Code of Professionalism, § 7.) Footnote 2:

  • Hearing

ROXANE E SMITH ET AL VS CINDY YONG CHI

Code §§ 6106, 6077; Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 5-220 [member shall not suppress evidence member has legal obligation to reveal or produce].) There are also criminal penalties for spoliation provided in Penal Code section 135, applicable to the willful destruction or concealment of anything that is part of the investigation in litigation. (Cedars-Sinai, supra, at p. 13.)

  • Hearing

LERMA VS R.E. STAITE ENGINEERING, INC

(See, B&P Code §6068(d)) Defendant claims that plaintiff's claims are barred by the workers' compensation exclusivity rule and that plaintiff received workers' compensation benefits through his employer DLF Construction, Inc., who loaned plaintiff to defendant. Thus, under the doctrine of special employee/borrowed servant, plaintiff cannot seek recovery from defendant. Both federal and California law recognize the doctrine. (McCollum v. Smith (9th Cir. 1964) 339 F.2d. 348, 351; Cruz v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CLEVE PELL VS THE MONTEBELLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

Skvarna’s declaration, would constitute a violation of California Business and Professions Code sections 6106 and 6068(d) and California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 3.3, 3.4, and 8.4. (Id. at pp. 8:21-9:5.) Plaintiff contends that even if Defendants’ counsel lacked the intent to deceive the Court or Plaintiff, Defendants’ counsel created a “false impression that Dr. Skvarna had provided the information in the declaration under penalty of perjury and signed it.” (Id. at p. 9:6-9.)

  • Hearing

CLEVE PELL VS THE MONTEBELLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

Skvarna’s declaration, would constitute a violation of California Business and Professions Code sections 6106 and 6068(d) and California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 3.3, 3.4, and 8.4. (Id. at pp. 8:21-9:5.) Plaintiff contends that even if Defendants’ counsel lacked the intent to deceive the Court or Plaintiff, Defendants’ counsel created a “false impression that Dr. Skvarna had provided the information in the declaration under penalty of perjury and signed it.” (Id. at p. 9:6-9.)

  • Hearing

ALTA VISTA SOLUTIONS VS. STATE

For instance, even though Government Code section 4528 states how a state agency head negotiates a contract after awarding a section 4525 contract, a provision was adopted on the same subject when the Public Contract Code was adopted in 1990, section 6106, and an explicit cross-reference to that section was added to the Government Code at the same time.

  • Hearing

ALTA VISTA SOLUTIONS VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In discussing this question, in addition to whatever they find themselves, the parties should consider the applicability and significance of the following provisions: Public Contract Code sections 100, and particularly 100 (d), 6106, 10300 and the legislative history for section 10300 found at Stats 1995 ch 932 § 3 (SB 910), including the Legislative findings and declarations, and 10335 (a); Government Code sections 4526 (requirement to adopt procedures by regulation to ensure services are engaged based on demonstrated

  • Hearing

ASSET CAPITAL RECOVERY GROUP LLC VS GUERRA

Code § 6068(d). The Court specifically informed plaintiff's counsel that plaintiff's Notice of Ruling as to the 11/2/18 hearing was inaccurate. ROA # 27. The Court further made clear that to the extent plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleading relied entirely on the ruling on the requests for admission, it would not be granted. Id. The Court expects to hear from plaintiff's counsel as to why its continued misrepresentation should not be reported to the State Bar.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

ASSET CAPITAL RECOVERY GROUP LLC VS GUERRA

Code § 6068(d). The Court specifically informed plaintiff's counsel that plaintiff's Notice of Ruling as to the 11/2/18 hearing was inaccurate. ROA # 27. The Court further made clear that to the extent plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleading relied entirely on the ruling on the requests for admission, it would not be granted. Id. The Court expects to hear from plaintiff's counsel as to why its continued misrepresentation should not be reported to the State Bar.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

NETWORK THERAPIES, INC. VS. MMS

If it was the latter, the attorney may have violated the candor provisions of Business and Professions Code section 6068 (d) and the then-operative Rule of Professional Conduct 5-200. An order correcting the Judgment is warranted on the authority cited above and also under the principles that would apply to an argument, either in this case or in a separate suit in equity, that the Judgment is void because it awarded more than was requested in the complaint.

  • Hearing

ALEXANDER J PECEL VS. STEVEN B CHROMAN

He asserts causes of action for: 1) intentional tort (Breach of Fiduciary Duty/Breach B&P 6091, 6106, 6211, CRPC 4-100/Violations of State Bar Accounting Rules, Acts of Moral Turpitude); 2) intentional tort (Extortion – Civil – California Penal Code 518, 519 and CRPC 5-100); 3) intentional tort (IIED); and 4) general negligence. The gist of plaintiff's complaint is that defendant took possession of $248,566.42 in plaintiff's divorce proceeding.

  • Hearing

SHARON SALDAVIA VS. MACY'S CORPORATE SERVICES, INC. ET AL

The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentative ruling: The PARTIES are ORDERED to APPEAR to address Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests For Production, Set One and the issue of whether there were misrepresentations to the court (Business and Professions Code section 6068 (d)).

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Dianne Peebles

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

SHARON SALDAVIA VS. MACY'S CORPORATE SERVICES, INC. ET AL

The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentative ruling: The PARTIES are ORDERED to APPEAR to address Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests For Production, Set One and the issue of whether there were misrepresentations to the court (Business and Professions Code section 6068 (d)).

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Dianne Peebles

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

CONSUMER OPINION VS. ZCS

Code §6128(a), which makes it illegal for an attorney to engage in “deceit or collusion” with the “with intent to deceive the court or any party”. But, defendants do not concede that their conduct was illegal. Nor do defendants admit to plaintiff’s characterization of the facts. Thus, although plaintiff’s evidence is suggestive of illegal activity, it does not show that the defendants’ conduct was illegal as a matter of law.

  • Hearing

INVESTMENT SERVICES V DEVKOM INTERNATIONAL LLC VS. PACIFICWAVE PARTNERS LIMITED

Plaintiff includes a cause of action for "Breach of Business and Professions Code §6106" in its complaint. Business and Professions Code section 6106 concerns acts that constitute cause for disbarment. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6106.) "Breach of Business and Professions Code §6106" is not a cause of action. The demurrer as to the seventh cause of action is SUSTAINED. The Eighth Cause of Action for Legal Malpractice As discussed above, Plaintiffs allegations do not state a cause of action under Lucas.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

INVESTMENT SERVICES V DEVKOM INTERNATIONAL LLC VS. PACIFICWAVE PARTNERS LIMITED

Plaintiff includes a cause of action for "Breach of Business and Professions Code §6106" in its complaint. Business and Professions Code section 6106 concerns acts that constitute cause for disbarment. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6106.) "Breach of Business and Professions Code §6106" is not a cause of action. The demurrer as to the seventh cause of action is SUSTAINED. The Eighth Cause of Action for Legal Malpractice As discussed above, Plaintiffs allegations do not state a cause of action under Lucas.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

INVESTMENT SERVICES V DEVKOM INTERNATIONAL LLC VS. PACIFICWAVE PARTNERS LIMITED

Plaintiff includes a cause of action for "Breach of Business and Professions Code §6106" in its complaint. Business and Professions Code section 6106 concerns acts that constitute cause for disbarment. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6106.) "Breach of Business and Professions Code §6106" is not a cause of action. The demurrer as to the seventh cause of action is SUSTAINED. The Eighth Cause of Action for Legal Malpractice As discussed above, Plaintiffs allegations do not state a cause of action under Lucas.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

INVESTMENT SERVICES V DEVKOM INTERNATIONAL LLC VS. PACIFICWAVE PARTNERS LIMITED

Plaintiff includes a cause of action for "Breach of Business and Professions Code §6106" in its complaint. Business and Professions Code section 6106 concerns acts that constitute cause for disbarment. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6106.) "Breach of Business and Professions Code §6106" is not a cause of action. The demurrer as to the seventh cause of action is SUSTAINED. The Eighth Cause of Action for Legal Malpractice As discussed above, Plaintiffs allegations do not state a cause of action under Lucas.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

INVESTMENT SERVICES V DEVKOM INTERNATIONAL LLC VS. PACIFICWAVE PARTNERS LIMITED

Plaintiff includes a cause of action for "Breach of Business and Professions Code §6106" in its complaint. Business and Professions Code section 6106 concerns acts that constitute cause for disbarment. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6106.) "Breach of Business and Professions Code §6106" is not a cause of action. The demurrer as to the seventh cause of action is SUSTAINED. The Eighth Cause of Action for Legal Malpractice As discussed above, Plaintiffs allegations do not state a cause of action under Lucas.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

INVESTMENT SERVICES V DEVKOM INTERNATIONAL LLC VS. PACIFICWAVE PARTNERS LIMITED

Plaintiff includes a cause of action for "Breach of Business and Professions Code §6106" in its complaint. Business and Professions Code section 6106 concerns acts that constitute cause for disbarment. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6106.) "Breach of Business and Professions Code §6106" is not a cause of action. The demurrer as to the seventh cause of action is SUSTAINED. The Eighth Cause of Action for Legal Malpractice As discussed above, Plaintiffs allegations do not state a cause of action under Lucas.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MICHAEL S. LITTLE V. EDWARD G. MANNION, ET AL.

Code §§ 6068, 6106 and 6128(a), a crime; and insurer of Ins. Code § 790.03(h)(l), e.g., fraud as to ‘proof of claim.’ “4) Defendant failed to: i) sue insurer for blockbuster punitive damages ….; ii) claim corporate indemnity from plaintiff/parent company for $336,500 damages and iii) advise of defense attorney malpractice by not claiming indemnity and notifying D&O insurer immediately.

  • Hearing

POSHAN LEE VS. MICHAEL KIN WING CHUI ET AL

”, that James Li has made false statements in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(d), and that James Li has repeatedly disobeyed Court orders (see request for judicial notice, exhibit 9).

  • Hearing

PAN PARTNERSHIP VS LAS VIRGENES INVESTMENTS

Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5-200(B). Moving on to the merits of the motion, the seventh cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations is directed against Claudia Jo Jones, Dene Molina, United Associated Brokers, dba Ace Realty, Andy Zepeda, and Jose Cabrera. It alleges that plaintiff entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Las Virgenes Investments on 12/10/14. (FAC, ¶ 52). Defendants were aware of this contractual relationship. (FAC, ¶ 53).

  • Hearing

1 2     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.