San Diego class action lawyer

 

Plaintiff attorney sued defendants (attorney and firm) for breach of fiduciary duty. Defendants cross-complained for indemnity, breach of fiduciary duty, comparative fault and breach of contract. Plaintiff insurer intervened and sued plaintiff attorney in subrogation. Each party successfully moved for summary judgment. Both parties appealed from the judgments entered in the City and County of San Francisco Superior Court, California.

Two brothers hired plaintiff to represent them in a suit against a car manufacturer for injuries received when their pick-up truck rolled over and burst into flames. Plaintiff brought in defendants and another attorney to work on the case. The other attorney advanced the costs of the suit. On the night before closing arguments, the clients told counsel they wanted to settle, but plaintiff never discussed settlement with the manufacturer. The manufacturer won the case. The clients sued the other attorney and defendants for malpractice. San Diego class action lawyer settled and defendants' insurer settled the claims against defendants. That suit led to the instant consolidated cases. In one case, the court of appeals held that as a matter of law, as co-counsel representing the clients in their action against the manufacturer, defendants and plaintiff were not in a fiduciary relationship and owed each other no fiduciary duties. In the other case, the court of appeals held that the attorneys involved in the prosecution of the underlying action were not parties to a joint venture agreement. Thus, the insurer's claim for statutory contribution under partnership principles failed.

In the first case, summary judgment in favor of defendants and against plaintiff attorney was affirmed. In the second case, the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff attorney and against the insurer was affirmed.

Plaintiff businessman appealed from the order of the Superior Court of Alameda County (California) that entered judgment in favor of defendant attorney in the action filed by the businessman, which sought to rescind a contract entered into between the parties and have certain instruments associated with the contract cancelled.

The businessman filed an action against the attorney to rescind a contract entered into between himself and the attorney and to have cancelled certain instruments delivered by him pursuant to the contract. The attorney was initially retained by the businessman for the purpose of forming a gas and electric company. The attorney terminated his legal representation of the businessman, and the parties thereafter entered into negotiations, whereby the businessman contractually agreed to purchase the attorney's  in the newly formed gas and electric company in return for the cancellation of a promissory note held by the attorney. The ground relied upon for rescission of the businessman's agreement to purchase the attorney's  was that he was induced to enter into the contract by means of duress, menace, fraud, and undue influence. The superior court entered judgment in favor of the attorney. The court affirmed, holding that the contract between the parties was fair, just, and equitable. The court held that there was abundant evidence of arm's length negotiations, and that the businessman had experience in handling his own contractual business affairs.

The court affirmed the order of the superior court that entered judgment in favor of the attorney in the action filed by the businessman, which sought to rescind a contract entered into between the parties and have certain instruments associated with the contract canceled.