Preview
RAE
Fr Arsh Niki Mehan FILED
543 Kenmore Ave, ALAMEDA COUNTY
Oakland, CA 94610
omnenw WwWsNY
Phone (650) 346-8496
*&_
Plaintiff In Pro Per
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
10
11
Arsh Niki Mehan Case No.: R G é 0 0 / 5 2 2 /
12
Complaint for Damages For Legal Malpractice
13 Plaintiff, Of Contract; Breach Of Fiduciary Duty; Fraud
14
Vv.
15
Greg Silva, and Silva and Associates anc
16 DOES 1 to 50, inclusive,
17 Defendants
18
19
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
20
Plaintiff Arsh Niki Mehan (“Plaintiff”) hereby allege as follows:
21
1. Plaintiff is an individual who at all times relevant herein resided in the County of
22
23 Alameda, California.
24|| 2. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants Greg Silva,
25, and Silva and Associates and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, and Does 1 — 50, (“Defendants”) were
26
attorneys practicing law in the County of Alameda, California.
27
3. Plaintiff does not know the true names and capacities of Defendants sued herein.
28
1
Plaintiff Complaint for Damages for Legal Malpractice:
as Does 1-50, inclusive and therefore sue these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff
wmerNnoWwWwt
will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained.
WwW HY
4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants, and each of
fF
them, were the agents, servants, employees, and representatives of each of the remaining
Defendants, and in doing the things alleged, were acting in the course and scope of said agency,
employment and/or representation, or in the alternative, ratified and approved the conduct of the
other Defendants.
Oo
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
10
LEGAL MALPRACTICE
11
5. Plaintiff hereby incorporate by reference all the general allegations of this
12
complaint as though fully set forth herein.
13
14 6. Onor about January 1, 2019, Plaintiff retained defendants to represent her in
15 connection with a Family Law matter venued in Alameda County Superior Court, (the
16 “Underlying Action”). Defendants agreed to provide Plaintiff with legal advice, counsel and
17 assistance in regards to the Underlying Action. Plaintiff alleges that defendants engaged in
18
continuous representation of Plaintiff in the matter until less than one year prior to the
19
institution of the Stay Imposed by the California Supreme Court in Emergency Rules Related
20
21 to COVID-19 tolling of the statute of limitations for civil actions from April 6, 2020, and last
22 until 90 days after the lifting of the state of emergency.
23 7. Defendants, as a result of their attorney client relationship with plaintiff, had a duty
24
of care to Plaintiff to represent her and conduct their activities on their behalf in a manner that
25
was in compliance with the professional and ethical standards of practice for lawyers and trustees
26
in Alameda County and the State of California.
27
28
2
Plaintiff Complaint for Damages for Legal Malpractice:
8. During that time, Defendants engaged in the errors or omissions in the following
F
regards in activities on behalf of Plaintiff including when Defendants represented Plaintiff in her
HY
Ww
family law case, Alameda Superior Court Case No. HF-16-8300005.
fF
2&9. By agreeing to serve as Plaintiff’s attorneys in the matter, Defendants assumed a
naa
duty to act with due care and to ensure that the legal advice and services provided met the
standard of care observed by competent Family Law counsel.
wmenN
10. Defendants were negligent and careless, and failed to conform to the standard of
mo
care and provide competent legal advice, counsel, representation and services, and committed
O&O
the following errors and omissions, including but not limited to:
HS
KF
a. Defendants wasted and mishandled client funds, falsely advised client, and failed
KS
WN
to assert claims on behalf of client.
KY
b. Defendants mishandled a hearing on May 16, 2019.
FP
KF
c. Defendants mishandled other aspects of the case including, but not limited to,
DA
BY
outside experts, discovery, child custody, visitation and support.
RP
11. Plaintiff alleges that defendants’ errors and omission have resulted in injuries,
WON
KR
harm, and damages to plaintiff in the loss of benefits she was entitled to in the Underlying
FOF
KH
Action, the value of which was in excess of $100,000.
OO
NY
12. Asa direct and proximate result of the Defendants errors and omissions as set
fF
ND
forth above, Plaintiff have suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial and in excess of
YW
won
the minimum amount required for jurisdiction in this court. Specifically, Plaintiff suffered
DS
sr
WH
damages including, but not limited to obtaining an adverse result which would not have
ww
onoonawn
occurred but for the errors of defendants.
WO
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth herein:
b bv
3
Plaintiff Complaint for Damages for Legal Malpractice:
FY
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF CONTRACT
mona WO NY
13. Plaintiff hereby incorporate by reference all the general allegations of this
fF
complaint as though fully set forth herein.
a
14. By virtue of the acts and circumstances set forth in above, there existed a written
contract between Plaintiff and defendants for defendants to provide Plaintiff with professional
legal services. The implied terms of the contract included that Defendants! services would be in
mo
conformity with the standard of care and all rules and laws governing attorneys’ practice in
O
California.
Se
FP
15. Plaintiff alleges that defendants’ conduct as described above constituted a material
NY
He
breach of their contractual duties to Plaintiff.
WB
BS
16. Plaintiff performed all conditions precedent under said contract.
FF
PP
17. Asadirect and proximate result of the breach by defendant of their professional
RP
Oo
HB
contractual duties, Plaintiff has suffered the damages as stated herein.
KR
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
WBN
KH
BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
HO
BP
18. Plaintiff hereby incorporate by reference all the general allegations of this
OO
NY
complaint as though fully set forth herein.
WY
orvanonaw»krwobnsre
19. Defendants breached the duty of an attorney to properly invoice, report and hold
NY
funds in escrow; to pay funds to experts; to perform accounting according to California State
BH
WH
Bar Standards, and that items securing liens and judgments would be timely filed and recorded.
WO
20. Plaintiff was injured, damaged and harmed by the substandard performance of
wo
these obligations of Defendants and favors requested of Plaintiff by Defendants.
rw
Do
4
Plaintiff Complaint for Damages for Legal Malpractice:
Fr
21. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing financial losses to the
Plaintiff in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this court.
worn WO DH
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
FF
FRAUD
oa
22. Plaintiff hereby incorporate by reference all the general allegations of this
complaint as though fully set forth herein.
23. By virtue of the acts and circumstances set forth, Defendants made intentional or
Oo
negligent representation of material facts, including omission, concealment, and suppression, to
10
Plaintiff about her family law case and a custody motion. Defendants intended to defraud
11
Plaintiff and induce her to file a complaint to defraud her of fees for services rendered and court
12
awarded attorney’s fees. Defendants made material representations about the law and chances of
13
14 success, among other things, to compel Plaintiff to file a custody motion at considerable
15 expense and time. Defendants knew their representations were false or had no reasonable
16 grounds for believing they were true.
17 24. Defendants had reason to expect Plaintiff to rely on the misrepresentations because
18
of the nature of the Plaintiff-Defendant fiduciary, contractual, and attorney-client relationship.
19
Plaintiff did not know the representations were false, and believed them to be true. Plaintiff
20
21 acted in justifiable reliance on these representations made by her legal counsel.
22 25. Plaintiff has been substantially harmed by Defendants’ misrepresentations,
23 omissions, and concealment.
24
25
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below:
26
1. For damages according to proof and in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this
27
28
5
Plaintiff Complaint for Damages for Legal Malpractice:
court;
2. For attorney’s fees as may be allowed by contract and/or statute;
fp wD
naanr
3. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
4. For such other and further relief as the court deems proper.
oo
Dated: $l? ho
OO _
By: Arsh Niki Mehan, Plaintiff In Pro Per
O
HF
DY
OW
OOF
ae
wON
sO
Fob
Es
FF
No ET
oN
SOI
Pr
I
Qa
bw
&
NM
~s
mh
eo
6
Plaintiff Complaint for Damages for Legal Malpractice:
Preview
RAE Fr Arsh Niki Mehan FILED 543 Kenmore Ave, ALAMEDA COUNTY Oakland, CA 94610 omnenw WwWsNY Phone (650) 346-8496 *&_ Plaintiff In Pro Per IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 10 11 Arsh Niki Mehan Case No.: R G é 0 0 / 5 2 2 / 12 Complaint for Damages For Legal Malpractice 13 Plaintiff, Of Contract; Breach Of Fiduciary Duty; Fraud 14 Vv. 15 Greg Silva, and Silva and Associates anc 16 DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, 17 Defendants 18 19 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 20 Plaintiff Arsh Niki Mehan (“Plaintiff”) hereby allege as follows: 21 1. Plaintiff is an individual who at all times relevant herein resided in the County of 22 23 Alameda, California. 24|| 2. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants Greg Silva, 25, and Silva and Associates and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, and Does 1 — 50, (“Defendants”) were 26 attorneys practicing law in the County of Alameda, California. 27 3. Plaintiff does not know the true names and capacities of Defendants sued herein. 28 1 Plaintiff Complaint for Damages for Legal Malpractice: as Does 1-50, inclusive and therefore sue these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff wmerNnoWwWwt will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. WwW HY 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants, and each of fF them, were the agents, servants, employees, and representatives of each of the remaining Defendants, and in doing the things alleged, were acting in the course and scope of said agency, employment and/or representation, or in the alternative, ratified and approved the conduct of the other Defendants. Oo FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 10 LEGAL MALPRACTICE 11 5. Plaintiff hereby incorporate by reference all the general allegations of this 12 complaint as though fully set forth herein. 13 14 6. Onor about January 1, 2019, Plaintiff retained defendants to represent her in 15 connection with a Family Law matter venued in Alameda County Superior Court, (the 16 “Underlying Action”). Defendants agreed to provide Plaintiff with legal advice, counsel and 17 assistance in regards to the Underlying Action. Plaintiff alleges that defendants engaged in 18 continuous representation of Plaintiff in the matter until less than one year prior to the 19 institution of the Stay Imposed by the California Supreme Court in Emergency Rules Related 20 21 to COVID-19 tolling of the statute of limitations for civil actions from April 6, 2020, and last 22 until 90 days after the lifting of the state of emergency. 23 7. Defendants, as a result of their attorney client relationship with plaintiff, had a duty 24 of care to Plaintiff to represent her and conduct their activities on their behalf in a manner that 25 was in compliance with the professional and ethical standards of practice for lawyers and trustees 26 in Alameda County and the State of California. 27 28 2 Plaintiff Complaint for Damages for Legal Malpractice: 8. During that time, Defendants engaged in the errors or omissions in the following F regards in activities on behalf of Plaintiff including when Defendants represented Plaintiff in her HY Ww family law case, Alameda Superior Court Case No. HF-16-8300005. fF 2&9. By agreeing to serve as Plaintiff’s attorneys in the matter, Defendants assumed a naa duty to act with due care and to ensure that the legal advice and services provided met the standard of care observed by competent Family Law counsel. wmenN 10. Defendants were negligent and careless, and failed to conform to the standard of mo care and provide competent legal advice, counsel, representation and services, and committed O&O the following errors and omissions, including but not limited to: HS KF a. Defendants wasted and mishandled client funds, falsely advised client, and failed KS WN to assert claims on behalf of client. KY b. Defendants mishandled a hearing on May 16, 2019. FP KF c. Defendants mishandled other aspects of the case including, but not limited to, DA BY outside experts, discovery, child custody, visitation and support. RP 11. Plaintiff alleges that defendants’ errors and omission have resulted in injuries, WON KR harm, and damages to plaintiff in the loss of benefits she was entitled to in the Underlying FOF KH Action, the value of which was in excess of $100,000. OO NY 12. Asa direct and proximate result of the Defendants errors and omissions as set fF ND forth above, Plaintiff have suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial and in excess of YW won the minimum amount required for jurisdiction in this court. Specifically, Plaintiff suffered DS sr WH damages including, but not limited to obtaining an adverse result which would not have ww onoonawn occurred but for the errors of defendants. WO WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth herein: b bv 3 Plaintiff Complaint for Damages for Legal Malpractice: FY SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF CONTRACT mona WO NY 13. Plaintiff hereby incorporate by reference all the general allegations of this fF complaint as though fully set forth herein. a 14. By virtue of the acts and circumstances set forth in above, there existed a written contract between Plaintiff and defendants for defendants to provide Plaintiff with professional legal services. The implied terms of the contract included that Defendants! services would be in mo conformity with the standard of care and all rules and laws governing attorneys’ practice in O California. Se FP 15. Plaintiff alleges that defendants’ conduct as described above constituted a material NY He breach of their contractual duties to Plaintiff. WB BS 16. Plaintiff performed all conditions precedent under said contract. FF PP 17. Asadirect and proximate result of the breach by defendant of their professional RP Oo HB contractual duties, Plaintiff has suffered the damages as stated herein. KR THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION WBN KH BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY HO BP 18. Plaintiff hereby incorporate by reference all the general allegations of this OO NY complaint as though fully set forth herein. WY orvanonaw»krwobnsre 19. Defendants breached the duty of an attorney to properly invoice, report and hold NY funds in escrow; to pay funds to experts; to perform accounting according to California State BH WH Bar Standards, and that items securing liens and judgments would be timely filed and recorded. WO 20. Plaintiff was injured, damaged and harmed by the substandard performance of wo these obligations of Defendants and favors requested of Plaintiff by Defendants. rw Do 4 Plaintiff Complaint for Damages for Legal Malpractice: Fr 21. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing financial losses to the Plaintiff in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this court. worn WO DH FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FF FRAUD oa 22. Plaintiff hereby incorporate by reference all the general allegations of this complaint as though fully set forth herein. 23. By virtue of the acts and circumstances set forth, Defendants made intentional or Oo negligent representation of material facts, including omission, concealment, and suppression, to 10 Plaintiff about her family law case and a custody motion. Defendants intended to defraud 11 Plaintiff and induce her to file a complaint to defraud her of fees for services rendered and court 12 awarded attorney’s fees. Defendants made material representations about the law and chances of 13 14 success, among other things, to compel Plaintiff to file a custody motion at considerable 15 expense and time. Defendants knew their representations were false or had no reasonable 16 grounds for believing they were true. 17 24. Defendants had reason to expect Plaintiff to rely on the misrepresentations because 18 of the nature of the Plaintiff-Defendant fiduciary, contractual, and attorney-client relationship. 19 Plaintiff did not know the representations were false, and believed them to be true. Plaintiff 20 21 acted in justifiable reliance on these representations made by her legal counsel. 22 25. Plaintiff has been substantially harmed by Defendants’ misrepresentations, 23 omissions, and concealment. 24 25 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below: 26 1. For damages according to proof and in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this 27 28 5 Plaintiff Complaint for Damages for Legal Malpractice: court; 2. For attorney’s fees as may be allowed by contract and/or statute; fp wD naanr 3. For costs of suit incurred herein; and 4. For such other and further relief as the court deems proper. oo Dated: $l? ho OO _ By: Arsh Niki Mehan, Plaintiff In Pro Per O HF DY OW OOF ae wON sO Fob Es FF No ET oN SOI Pr I Qa bw & NM ~s mh eo 6 Plaintiff Complaint for Damages for Legal Malpractice: