Preview
(ONIN
23127342
| PAUL A. FRASSETTO (SBN 114802)
FRASSETTO LAW OFFICES
505 Montgomery Street, 10" Floor Fifist
San Francisco, California 94111 ALAMEDA ie
Tel (415) 354-2700
Email: paulfrassetto@yahoo.com
SEP 10 2021
Attorney for Plaintiffs
CLERK OF [eis
DENAE WILSON and LONNIE WILSON JANE THOMAS, Deputy
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
10 (Unlimited Jurisdiction)
11
12
|
DENAE WILSON and LONNIE WILSON, No. pg2111233°
13
Plaintiffs,
14
VS. . COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
18 MONIQUE K. DORYLAND; DOYLAND LAW
OFFICE and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
16
Defendants.
7
18
18
20
Plaintiffs DENAE WILSON and LONNIE WILSON allege:
21
1. Defendant MONIQUE K. DORYLAND is, and at al’ times relevant herein was, an
22 attorney at and law practicing law in the County of Alameda, State of California.
23 2. Defendant DORYLAND LAW OFFICE, is a law firm of unknown nature, with its
24 principal place of business in the County of Alameda, State of California.
25 3. The true names and capacities of DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, are unknown to
26
Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are informed ard believes and thereon allege that DOES 1 through 20 are
27
responsible in some manner for the behavior arid events alleged in this compiaint. Plaintiffs will
28
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
amend this complaint to allege the true names and capacities of DOES 1 through 20 when the same
are ascertained.
4. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that, except as alleged
otherwise below, each defendant is, and at all time mentioned herein was, the agent and employee of
each other defendant in doing the acts and omissions alleged herein, and was acting within the scope
and course of his, her or its employment and agency, and is liable to Plaintiffs for the acts and
omissions alleged herein.
5. In 2012 Plaintiffs retained Defendants MONIQUE K. DORYLAND and DORLYLAND
10
LAW OFFICE regarding Plaintiffs’ civil claims against Wells Fargo Bank and others. Said Defendants
4 became Plaintiffs’ attorneys of record in a civil lawsuit entitled Denae Wilson, Lonnie Wilson v. Wells
12 Fargo Bank, N.A., et af., Contra Costa County Superior Court, Case No. CIV-MSC 72-03011
13 (hereinafter referred to as the “Underlying Case”),
14
6. The Underlying Case was filed on or about December 27, 2012, and a final judgment
15
was entered in favor of the defendants in the Underlying Case and against Plaintiffs on or about
16
September 18, 2020. The judgment in the Underlying Case was entered after the successful motion
17
by the defendants in the Underlying Cese to dismiss Plaintiffs; complaint for failure to prosecute
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 583.310 and 583.320.
7. While the motion to dismiss in Underlying Case was pending, the defendants in the
Underlying Case offered to settle the entire cese for a payment to Plaintiffs of a specific and
22 substantial amount of money. Plaintiffs informed Defendants that they wanted to accept the
23 settlement offer. However, Defendants failed to accept the offer on behalf of their clients, and
24 because of Defendants’ failure, the offer was revoked and the case was later dismissed.
25 8. Following the dismissal of Plaintifis’ complaint in the Underlying Case and on
26 September 17, 2020, the court awarded attorney's fees and costs in favor of Wells Fargo Bank and
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
against Plaintiffs in the amount of $531,043.11, and in favor of Berkadian Commercial Mortgage, LLC
and against Plaintiffs in the amount of $57,644.50.
9. Defendants continued to represent Plaintiffs concerning the specific subject matter of
this Complaint until within one year of the filing of this Complaint. |
10. Through
the exercise of reasonable diligence, Plaintiffs did not discover the facts giving
rise to their cause of action against Defendants until within one yearof the filing of this Complaint.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
[Professional Negligence]
Plaintiff incorporates herein the allegations set forth above at paragraphs 1 through 10,
10
inclusive. | |
14
11. During the period of representation, Defendants committed errors and omissions and
12
engaged in conduct below the standard of care to be exercised by attorneys in California as follows:
13
A. By allowing the Underlying Case to be dismissed;
14
8. By failing to timely and diligently monitor and prosecute the Underlying Case:
15
16 C. By failing to accept the settlement offer by the defendants in the Underlying Case as
17 instructed by Plaintiffs; |
18 D. By failing to timely and reasonably communicate with Plaintiffs concerning important
19 events in the Underlying Case, including in connection with the offer to settle by the
20 defendants in the Underlying Case: |
24
E. | Defendants committed further acts and omissions which constitute negligence and
22
lack of reasonable care, skill and diligence in matters currently unknown to Plaintiffs and
23
which have caused or will cause damages to Plaintiffs; Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to
24
allege such further acts and omissions when they are ascertained.
25
12. As adirect result of Defendants’ negligence, as described above, Plaintiffs have
26
suffered damages in that they lost the value of the Underlying Case, and in the absence of
a7
28
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiffs would have recovered the value of the Underlying case, to
Plaintiffs’ damage in an amount according to proof.
13. As a further direct result of Defendan‘s’ negligence, as described above, Plaintiffs
have suffered damages in that they are now personally liable for the attorney’s fees and costs
awarded in favor of the defendants in the Underlying Case, such amount being $588,687.61, plus
interest as allowed by law.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter alleged.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
[Breact. of Fiduciary Duty]
10
Plairtiffs incorporate herein the allegations set forth above at paragraphs 1 through 13,
i1
inclusive.
12
14. — At the time Plaintiffs consulted with ard employed Defendants, anc thereafter, the most
13
confidential selationship existed between them, and Plaintiffs reposed trust and confidence in
14
Defendants as their attorneys. Defendants were obligated by the attorney-client relationship to make
18
16 full disclosure to Plaintiffs of all material matters, to deal fairly, justly, and honestly with Plaintiffs, and to
be loyal to tre interests of Plainti?fs, and to place Plaintiffs’ interests above their own interests.
15. During the period of representation, Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
49 Plaintiffs by engaging in the conduct alleged hereinabove, including at paragraph 11. Defendants
20 further breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs by placing their own interests ahead of Plaintiffs’
24
interests, including by failing and refusing to accept the settlement offer by the Defendants in the
22
Underlying Case.
23
16. As adirect and proximate result of Defendants’ breaches of fiduciary duty, as
a4
described he-ein, Plaintiff has suffered damages as a'leged hereinabove at paragraphs 12 and 13
25
above.
26
fil
27
28 /tl
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgrnent as follows:
A. For special and consequential damages in an amount according to proof,
B. For costs of suit incurred herein;
C. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper and just.
Dated: September g 2019 j .
PAULA. FRASSETFO
Attérney for Plaintiffs
DENAE WILSON and LONNIE WILSON
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
24
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Preview
(ONIN 23127342 | PAUL A. FRASSETTO (SBN 114802) FRASSETTO LAW OFFICES 505 Montgomery Street, 10" Floor Fifist San Francisco, California 94111 ALAMEDA ie Tel (415) 354-2700 Email: paulfrassetto@yahoo.com SEP 10 2021 Attorney for Plaintiffs CLERK OF [eis DENAE WILSON and LONNIE WILSON JANE THOMAS, Deputy SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 10 (Unlimited Jurisdiction) 11 12 | DENAE WILSON and LONNIE WILSON, No. pg2111233° 13 Plaintiffs, 14 VS. . COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 18 MONIQUE K. DORYLAND; DOYLAND LAW OFFICE and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, 16 Defendants. 7 18 18 20 Plaintiffs DENAE WILSON and LONNIE WILSON allege: 21 1. Defendant MONIQUE K. DORYLAND is, and at al’ times relevant herein was, an 22 attorney at and law practicing law in the County of Alameda, State of California. 23 2. Defendant DORYLAND LAW OFFICE, is a law firm of unknown nature, with its 24 principal place of business in the County of Alameda, State of California. 25 3. The true names and capacities of DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, are unknown to 26 Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are informed ard believes and thereon allege that DOES 1 through 20 are 27 responsible in some manner for the behavior arid events alleged in this compiaint. Plaintiffs will 28 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES amend this complaint to allege the true names and capacities of DOES 1 through 20 when the same are ascertained. 4. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that, except as alleged otherwise below, each defendant is, and at all time mentioned herein was, the agent and employee of each other defendant in doing the acts and omissions alleged herein, and was acting within the scope and course of his, her or its employment and agency, and is liable to Plaintiffs for the acts and omissions alleged herein. 5. In 2012 Plaintiffs retained Defendants MONIQUE K. DORYLAND and DORLYLAND 10 LAW OFFICE regarding Plaintiffs’ civil claims against Wells Fargo Bank and others. Said Defendants 4 became Plaintiffs’ attorneys of record in a civil lawsuit entitled Denae Wilson, Lonnie Wilson v. Wells 12 Fargo Bank, N.A., et af., Contra Costa County Superior Court, Case No. CIV-MSC 72-03011 13 (hereinafter referred to as the “Underlying Case”), 14 6. The Underlying Case was filed on or about December 27, 2012, and a final judgment 15 was entered in favor of the defendants in the Underlying Case and against Plaintiffs on or about 16 September 18, 2020. The judgment in the Underlying Case was entered after the successful motion 17 by the defendants in the Underlying Cese to dismiss Plaintiffs; complaint for failure to prosecute pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 583.310 and 583.320. 7. While the motion to dismiss in Underlying Case was pending, the defendants in the Underlying Case offered to settle the entire cese for a payment to Plaintiffs of a specific and 22 substantial amount of money. Plaintiffs informed Defendants that they wanted to accept the 23 settlement offer. However, Defendants failed to accept the offer on behalf of their clients, and 24 because of Defendants’ failure, the offer was revoked and the case was later dismissed. 25 8. Following the dismissal of Plaintifis’ complaint in the Underlying Case and on 26 September 17, 2020, the court awarded attorney's fees and costs in favor of Wells Fargo Bank and 27 28 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES against Plaintiffs in the amount of $531,043.11, and in favor of Berkadian Commercial Mortgage, LLC and against Plaintiffs in the amount of $57,644.50. 9. Defendants continued to represent Plaintiffs concerning the specific subject matter of this Complaint until within one year of the filing of this Complaint. | 10. Through the exercise of reasonable diligence, Plaintiffs did not discover the facts giving rise to their cause of action against Defendants until within one yearof the filing of this Complaint. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION [Professional Negligence] Plaintiff incorporates herein the allegations set forth above at paragraphs 1 through 10, 10 inclusive. | | 14 11. During the period of representation, Defendants committed errors and omissions and 12 engaged in conduct below the standard of care to be exercised by attorneys in California as follows: 13 A. By allowing the Underlying Case to be dismissed; 14 8. By failing to timely and diligently monitor and prosecute the Underlying Case: 15 16 C. By failing to accept the settlement offer by the defendants in the Underlying Case as 17 instructed by Plaintiffs; | 18 D. By failing to timely and reasonably communicate with Plaintiffs concerning important 19 events in the Underlying Case, including in connection with the offer to settle by the 20 defendants in the Underlying Case: | 24 E. | Defendants committed further acts and omissions which constitute negligence and 22 lack of reasonable care, skill and diligence in matters currently unknown to Plaintiffs and 23 which have caused or will cause damages to Plaintiffs; Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to 24 allege such further acts and omissions when they are ascertained. 25 12. As adirect result of Defendants’ negligence, as described above, Plaintiffs have 26 suffered damages in that they lost the value of the Underlying Case, and in the absence of a7 28 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiffs would have recovered the value of the Underlying case, to Plaintiffs’ damage in an amount according to proof. 13. As a further direct result of Defendan‘s’ negligence, as described above, Plaintiffs have suffered damages in that they are now personally liable for the attorney’s fees and costs awarded in favor of the defendants in the Underlying Case, such amount being $588,687.61, plus interest as allowed by law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter alleged. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION [Breact. of Fiduciary Duty] 10 Plairtiffs incorporate herein the allegations set forth above at paragraphs 1 through 13, i1 inclusive. 12 14. — At the time Plaintiffs consulted with ard employed Defendants, anc thereafter, the most 13 confidential selationship existed between them, and Plaintiffs reposed trust and confidence in 14 Defendants as their attorneys. Defendants were obligated by the attorney-client relationship to make 18 16 full disclosure to Plaintiffs of all material matters, to deal fairly, justly, and honestly with Plaintiffs, and to be loyal to tre interests of Plainti?fs, and to place Plaintiffs’ interests above their own interests. 15. During the period of representation, Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to 49 Plaintiffs by engaging in the conduct alleged hereinabove, including at paragraph 11. Defendants 20 further breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs by placing their own interests ahead of Plaintiffs’ 24 interests, including by failing and refusing to accept the settlement offer by the Defendants in the 22 Underlying Case. 23 16. As adirect and proximate result of Defendants’ breaches of fiduciary duty, as a4 described he-ein, Plaintiff has suffered damages as a'leged hereinabove at paragraphs 12 and 13 25 above. 26 fil 27 28 /tl COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgrnent as follows: A. For special and consequential damages in an amount according to proof, B. For costs of suit incurred herein; C. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper and just. Dated: September g 2019 j . PAULA. FRASSETFO Attérney for Plaintiffs DENAE WILSON and LONNIE WILSON 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES