What is Puffing in Negotiations?

Useful Rulings on Puffing in Negotiations

Rulings on Puffing in Negotiations

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

    Jan 20, 2017

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

    Feb 28, 2019

  • 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

    Feb 28, 2019

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

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

    Apr 03, 2019

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

    Apr 03, 2019

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

    Dec 07, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

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

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

    Dec 07, 2017

  • 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

    Dec 07, 2017

  • 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

    Dec 07, 2017

  • 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

    Dec 07, 2017

  • 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

    Dec 07, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

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

    Mar 13, 2020

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

    May 17, 2018

  • 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

    Apr 25, 2018

  • Judge

    Dianne Peebles

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

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

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

    Mar 06, 2019

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

    Apr 04, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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

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

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

    Jul 11, 2019

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

    Apr 19, 2018

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

    Nov 01, 2018

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

    Sep 11, 2017

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

1 2     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.