What are the rules for seeking advice about current clients?

Useful Rulings on Seeking Advice About Current Clients

Recent Rulings on Seeking Advice About Current Clients

DYE VS. FREIDIN

Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal. App. 4th 1518, 1528. The FAC is unclear as to when the breach of contract cause of action accrued. It alleges that the parties entered their agreement at some point in 2009 – the same year they purchased the property. See the FAC at ¶ 14. However, Defendant allegedly repudiated the contract numerous times, with the final repudiation occurring at some point in 2019. Ibid. at ¶ 20.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

KLINE VS SNR 27 THE SPRINGS OF ESCONDIDO MANAGEMENT LLC

Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal. App. 4th 1518, 1528. See also United States Liab. Ins. Co. v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc. (1970) 1 Cal. 3d 586, 596 (a cause of action accrues once the party owning it is entitled to commence and prosecute an action thereon.). The elements for breach of contract are: "(1) existence of the contract; (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) defendant's breach; and (4) damages to plaintiff as a result of the breach." CDF Firefighters v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KLINE VS SNR 27 THE SPRINGS OF ESCONDIDO MANAGEMENT LLC

Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal. App. 4th 1518, 1528. See also United States Liab. Ins. Co. v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc. (1970) 1 Cal. 3d 586, 596 (a cause of action accrues once the party owning it is entitled to commence and prosecute an action thereon.). The elements for breach of contract are: "(1) existence of the contract; (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) defendant's breach; and (4) damages to plaintiff as a result of the breach." CDF Firefighters v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

GITI SHOUSHANI VS SHAVER KORFF CASTRONOVO LLP, ET AL.

(Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1534.) “The elements of a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty are: (1) existence of a fiduciary duty; (2) breach of the fiduciary duty; and (3) damage proximately caused by the breach.” (Id.) “The attorney-client relationship is a fiduciary relation of the very highest character imposing on the attorney a duty to communicate to the client whatever information the attorney has or may acquire in relation to the subject matter of the transaction.”

  • Hearing

RENNEKER V. SNYDER LANGSTON HOLDINGS, LLC

(Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1534; Pierce v. Lyman (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1101–1102.) A fiduciary relationship is a relationship existing between parties to a transaction wherein one party is duty bound to act with the utmost good faith for the benefit of the other.

  • Hearing

RYAN BEDARD VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC

(Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal. App. 4th 1518, 1529.) “When a plaintiff reasonably should have discovered facts for purposes of the accrual of a case of action or application of the delayed discovery rule is generally a question of fact, properly decided as a matter of law only if the evidence . . . can support only one reasonable conclusion.” (Broberg v. The Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 912, 921.)

  • Hearing

HITOMI VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

., Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518 (finding it was unreasonable for personal injury plaintiff to refuse to investigate whether her physical symptoms could be mold-related because of her mistaken belief they stemmed from other causes).)

  • Hearing

BROOKE KNAPP VS LAWRENCE A. GINSBERG, ET AL.

(Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1528.) Here, the four-year statute of limitations would be tolled until Plaintiff suffered actual injury as a result of the alleged professional negligence.

  • Hearing

JOHN MILLER, ET AL. VS MARTIN D. GROSS, ET AL.

Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1534. As discussed above, there are sufficient allegations that an attorney-client relationship existed between Defendant Gross and Plaintiff Miller regarding the assignment of real property. Here, Defendant allegedly represented both sides in an Assignment, used the Assignment to bid on real property without telling Miller, recovered a deed for real property and then recovered cash and failed to inform Miller of that recovery. 1AC, ¶ 5.

  • Hearing

JORDAN GROSSMAN VS JESSICA HERWILL ET AL

The more relevant case to the disgorgement issue here is Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal. App. 4th 1518. In Slovensky, a toxic tort case, the defendant lied to plaintiff when plaintiff retained him by telling plaintiff that the lawyer would not take any more toxic tort clients at the apartment complex where plaintiff’s injury occurred. He then signed up 20 more clients.

  • Hearing

IRVINE BAPTIST CHURCH V. KWON

First Cause of Action—Breach of Fiduciary Duty against David Kwon and Dong Il Shin: Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1534, states, “ ‘. . . The elements of a cause of action for a breach of fiduciary duty are: (1) existence of a fiduciary duty; (2) breach of the fiduciary duty; and (3) damage proximately caused by the breach. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” The First Amended Complaint (FAC) does not adequately allege that Plaintiff was damaged as a result of the alleged breach.

  • Hearing

MONICA LEON VS MS DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY, LLC

Counsel contends that his firm’s continued representation will violate Rules of Professional Code Rule 1.4(a)(2) and 1.1(a). Absent a showing of resulting prejudice, an attorney’s request for withdrawal should be granted. (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406.) The Court notes that trial is scheduled for April 27, 2020 and no other motions are currently on calendar. Accordingly, no prejudice will result in granting this motion.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

PLANNET CONSULTING VS. HOWARD

Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal. App. 4th 1518, 1534; Pierce v. Lyman (1991) 1 Cal. App. 4th 1093, 1101–02. A fiduciary relationship is a relationship existing between parties to a transaction wherein one party is duty bound to act with the utmost good faith for the benefit of the other.

  • Hearing

HOSSEIN FATEHMANESH VS DAVID LALLY

(Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1534 (quoting Beery v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 802, 813.) “‘The scope of an attorney’s duty may be determined as a matter of law based on the Rules of Professional Conduct which, ‘together with statutes and general principles relating to other fiduciary relationships, all help define the duty component of the fiduciary duty which an attorney owes to his [or her] client.’’” (Id. at 1534-35 (quoting Stanley v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

TONY ATALLAH ET AL VS BURLISON LAW GROUP ET AL

(Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1528, as modified on denial of reh'g (Oct. 12, 2006).) Breach of Fiduciary Duty “The elements of a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty are: (1) existence of a fiduciary duty; (2) breach of the fiduciary duty; and (3) damage proximately caused by the breach.” (Gutierrez v. Girardi (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 925, 932.)

  • Hearing

CHATEAU LAKESIDE PARTNERS, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION VS FREDERICK L. SPINRAD, ESQ., AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

(Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1535.) “Disgorgement of fees may be an appropriate remedy for an attorney’s breach of fiduciary duty.” (Id.) “The measure of damages in a legal malpractice action involving an attorney’s failure to bring a claim is the value of the claim lost.” (Piscitelli v. Friedenberg (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 953, 979.)

  • Hearing

CHATEAU LAKESIDE PARTNERS, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION VS FREDERICK L. SPINRAD, ESQ., AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

(Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1535.) “Disgorgement of fees may be an appropriate remedy for an attorney’s breach of fiduciary duty.” (Id.) “The measure of damages in a legal malpractice action involving an attorney’s failure to bring a claim is the value of the claim lost.” (Piscitelli v. Friedenberg (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 953, 979.)

  • Hearing

ADRIAN ZAMBRANO VS OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, ET AL.

(Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1528.) Here, Plaintiff’s causes of action are based upon the loan modification offered to him, and the related representations made to him, in March of 2015. Plaintiff further alleges that his injuries were immediate in that the 2015 modification resulted in higher-than-expected monthly payments and an unchanged maturity date.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

CHRISTINA GARCIA VS JESSE E. FRENCH, ESQ.,, ET AL.

Furthermore, the only Rule of Professional Conduct cited by Garcia in her opposition is (Rule 1.4(a)(3) which requires attorneys to “keep the client reasonably informed about significant developments relating to the representation.” (Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 1.4(a)(3).) There are no facts alleged in the FAC that Dan failed to keep Garcia reasonably informed about developments in her personal injury case. Therefore, Dan’s demurrer is sustained.

  • Hearing

MITCHELL MIDDLETON VS MICHAEL D WAKS ET AL

(Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1534, as modified on denial of reh'g (Oct. 12, 2006) citing Beery v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 802, 813.) Further, with respect to Plaintiffs lack of payment despite Bish’s knowledge of such, and in light of the fact that she, herself had already been paid, Plaintiff has provided sufficient documentation of a triable issue of fact.

  • Hearing

GLOBAL STUDENT HOUSING LLC VS TURCO

Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1534; Pierce v. Lyman (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1101–1102. A fiduciary relationship is a relationship existing between parties to a transaction wherein one party is duty bound to act with the utmost good faith for the benefit of the other.

  • Hearing

CHIANG THAO VS. MAY LEE

Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1534; Pierce v. Lyman (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1101–1102. “Before a person can be charged with a fiduciary obligation, he must either knowingly undertake to act on behalf and for the benefit of another, or must enter into a relationship which imposes that undertaking as a matter of law.” City of Hope Nat. Medical Center v. Genentech, Inc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 375, 386.

  • Hearing

  • County

    Merced County, CA

FIELD TIME TARGET & TRAINING V. CARINGELLA, ET AL.

(Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1534; Pierce v. Lyman (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1101–1102.) A fiduciary relationship is a relationship existing between parties to a transaction wherein one party is duty bound to act with the utmost good faith for the benefit of the other.

  • Hearing

RONALD K. GREEN VS STEVEN MICHAEL LASKY, ET AL.

(Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1534.) Facts giving rise to a confidential, fiduciary or trustee relationship must be pled, and a “bare allegation that defendants assumed a fiduciary relationship” is a conclusion. (Zumbrun v. Univ. of So. Cal. (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 1, 13.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SHAKINA D ORTEGA VS. HIGGS FLETCHER & MACK LLP

(Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1533-1534.) Here, the claim for legal malpractice fails based on the declaration from the Defendants meeting a fiduciary duty fails as well. For these reasons, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment is supported by evidence sufficient to sustain the motion. II. The party opposing the motion has not met their burden to show triable issues of fact exist.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

1 2 3     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.