What is Puffing in Negotiations?

Useful Rulings on Puffing in Negotiations

Recent Rulings on Puffing in Negotiations

AUDIO PLUS SERVICES, INC. V. DIGITAL EAR, INC.

Hopefully this was not an attempt to mislead this Court by omitting to bring relevant facts to its attention in violation of B&P Code sec.6068(d). In addition the referred Ex. I shows that on 9/2 Mr. Berenjian only sought a 4-day continuance because his attorney had just been permitted to withdraw. Yet this motion was not made until 3 weeks later and then on an ex parte basis.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2016

GARCIA V. SUBURBAN PROPANE, L.P.

Defendant alleges that plaintiffs’ counsel’s conduct violates Business and Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (d), Business and Professions Code section 6106, Business and Professions Code section 6128, Penal Code section 115, subdivision (a) and violates California Rule of Professional Conduct 5-200, subparts (A) and (B). Defendant also alleges the conduct is sanctionable under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, subdivision (b)(1).

  • Hearing

    Aug 29, 2016

WARREN LEGARIE VS. MAHMOUD ASSAF ET AL

6068(d) to act truthfully and, therefore, constitutes bad faith. See Bihun v. AT&T Info. Sys (1993) 13 CA4th 976, 991 (reversed on other grounds) and CEB ?8:10. In providing the same response to 118 requests it is an indication that plaintiff did not review the responsive documents prior to serving the response. (continued on part 2) =(302/JPT)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2015

  • Judge

    Katherine Gallo

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

MICHAEL COGNATA VS. METROPOLITAN POOL BUILDERS INC

This would appear to the Court to be a violation of the Standards of Professional Conduct and duties of an attorney set forth in B&P Code § 6068 (d): To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him or her those means only as are consistent with truth, and never to seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.

  • Hearing

    May 29, 2013

JOAN BOICE BY AND THROUGH HER SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST VS. EMERITUS CORPORATION

On the last ground, Defendant contends that Plaintiffs' counsel's conduct violated CRPC 5-200, Business and Profession's Code section 6068(d) and (f), and Penal Code sections 136.1, 133, and 137.

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2013

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

IN THE MATTER OF THE MANWANI FAMILY TRUST DTD 10/21/2004

(Rule 5-200(B), Cal.Rules Prof.Conduct). If petitioner is not the trustee, what standing does she have to marshal trust assets ? gmr

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2012

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA VS METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

B&PC § 6068(d). The emphasis on the legal obligation ignores the ethical obligation to inform the court and counsel that Santa Barbara was not truly neutral. See Marks declaration. Every attorney has a duty to employ only those means as are consistent with truth, and never to seek to mislead the judge by artifice or false statement of fact or law. § 6068(d). Concealment of material facts is just as misleading as explicit false statements, and non-disclosure of material facts is misconduct. Di Sabatino v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2009

VERA BROWN VS. JEFFERY GREENBERG ET AL

AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANT,NO OPPOSITION FILED.(302/J.MCBRIDE)...

  • Hearing

    Jun 01, 2004

VERA BROWN VS. JEFFERY GREENBERG ET AL

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OFF CALENDAR, UNTIMELY PROOF OF SERVICE, 03/12/04 BY MAIL. (302/REQ/ju)...

  • Hearing

    Apr 01, 2004

VERA BROWN VS. JEFFERY GREENBERG ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Be Relieved As Counsel-Civil HEARING REQUIRED.(302/KMM/JU)...

  • Hearing

    Feb 17, 2004

  « first    1 2

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.