CA Pub. Decisions

Where law firm concurrently represented two related entities, each in an entirely separate legal action, but did not represent either entity in a third matter in which one entity sued the other for unjust enrichment, disqualification of firm based on concurrent representation of parties with conflicting interests was not warranted. Where law firm previously represented one of the entities in a legal malpractice action to which the other related entity was not a party, and the entity that firm represented in the legal malpractice action did not show that information firm purportedly gained regarding entity's litigation philosophy and practices was material to unjust enrichment action, disqualification of firm based on prior representation of a party in a substantially related matter was not warranted.

Unambiguous provision in retainer agreement between accounting firm and client, requiring client--as a prerequisite to any future malpractice action--to raise existing professional negligence claims as an affirmative defense in any fee-related arbitration so that any such damages would be offset against accountant fees, and that only if remedy failed to compensate client for all negligence damages could client pursue further relief through separate litigation, was valid and enforceable. Client's failure to raise malpractice issue in arbitration proceedings was a complete bar to subsequent tort action, even if client was unaware of the malpractice issues at the time of the arbitration.

Unambiguous provision in retainer agreement between accounting firm and client, requiring client--as a prerequisite to any future malpractice action--to raise existing professional negligence claims as an affirmative defense in any fee-related arbitration so that any such damages would be offset against accountant fees, and only if remedy failed to compensate client for all negligence damages could client pursue further relief through separate litigation, was valid and enforceable. Client's failure to raise malpractice issue in arbitration proceedings was a complete bar to subsequent tort action, even if client was unaware of the malpractice issues at the time of the arbitration.

Normal "prudent person" standard of care, rather than Knight/Kahn limited duty of care, which is applicable to certain athletic activities to avoid discouraging vigorous participation by coparticipants and chilling a coach's role in pushing student athletes, applies to a middle school's potential liability for injuries occurring in a physical education golf class.

Federal regulations governing lending and other banking activities do not preempt state consumer protection laws with regard to claims that lenders and their agents induced consumers to apply for rapid refunds without informing them that these were actually tax refund appreciation loans and that the applications contained a provision allowing lender to seize the anticipated refund if debtor had any prior outstanding refund appreciation loan debts payable to other refund appreciation lenders.

Federal regulations governing lending and other banking activities do not preempt state consumer protection laws with regard to claims that lenders and their agents induced consumers to apply for rapid refunds without informing them that these were actually tax refund appreciation loans and that the applications contained a provision allowing lender to seize the anticipated refund if debtor had any prior outstanding refund appreciation loan debts payable to other refund appreciation lenders.

Where defendant real estate agent promised plaintiff buyer his name would be placed on the title once the loan in the agent's daughter's name--who provided no funds but was placed on title because, according to agent, plaintiff needed co-borrower--was funded and escrow closed, but defendant then reneged due to a previously undisclosed intent to keep the condominium as an investment, substantial evidence supported trial court's findings that defendant acquired the condominium through fraud, made material misrepresentations, and breached her fiduciary duties to plaintiff. Judgment quieting title in plaintiff and imposing a constructive trust were proper remedies in light of defendant's fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. Doctrine of unclean hands does not preclude plaintiff, who may have joined with defendant in an illegal scheme to conspire to defraud lender by having defendant's daughter secure loan in her name and then fraudulently conceal from the lender plaintiff's ownership interest in the property, from obtaining equitable relief from defendant's fraud. Trial court properly weighed equities and determined that defendant was more culpable than plaintiff. Evidence that defendant misappropriated plaintiff's down payment and caused him noneconomic damages through fraud was sufficient to support award of punitive damages.

Where defendant real estate agent promised plaintiff buyer his name would be placed on the title once the loan in the agent's daughter's name--who provided no funds but was placed on title because, according to agent, plaintiff needed co-borrower--was funded and escrow closed. Defendant then reneged due to a previously undisclosed intent to keep the condominium as an investment. Substantial evidence supported trial court's findings that defendant acquired the condominium through fraud, made material misrepresentations, and breached her fiduciary duties to plaintiff. Judgment quieting title in plaintiff and imposing a constructive trust were proper remedies in light of defendant's fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. Doctrine of unclean hands does not preclude plaintiff, who may have joined with defendant in an illegal scheme to conspire to defraud lender by having defendant's daughter secure loan in her name and then fraudulently conceal from the lender plaintiff's ownership interest in the property, from obtaining equitable relief from defendant's fraud. Trial court properly weighed equities and determined that defendant was more culpable than plaintiff. Evidence that defendant misappropriated plaintiff's down payment and caused him noneconomic damages through fraud was sufficient to support award of punitive damages.

Provision in arbitration agreement purporting to provide for judicial review of errors of law was void and unenforceable but was severable from the remainder of the agreement. Where agreement neither expressly allowed nor expressly prohibited classwide arbitration, arbitrators' ruling allowing arbitration to proceed on a classwide basis was entitled to judicial deference. Arbitrators' ruling that it was unnecessary for certain declarants to testify in person because the issues addressed in the declarations were matters of law rather than fact did not constitute a refusal to hear the declarants' testimony, and trial court erred in vacating award on that ground.

Provision in arbitration agreement purporting to provide for judicial review of errors of law was void and unenforceable but was severable from the remainder of the agreement. Where agreement neither expressly allowed nor expressly prohibited classwide arbitration, arbitrators' ruling allowing arbitration to proceed on a classwide basis was entitled to judicial deference. Arbitrators' ruling that it was unnecessary for certain declarants to testify in person because the issues addressed in the declarations were matters of law rather than fact did not constitute a refusal to hear the declarants' testimony, and trial court erred in vacating award on that ground.

Where plaintiff consulted attorneys to represent plaintiff in toxic mold personal injury action after statute of limitations on plaintiff's claim had run, but attorneys were able to procure a settlement for plaintiff, trial court properly granted summary judgment to attorneys in plaintiff's subsequent suit against attorneys for malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff could not prove damages since plaintiff obtained a recovery plaintiff was not legally entitled to.

Where plaintiff consulted attorneys to represent plaintiff in toxic mold personal injury action after statute of limitations on plaintiff's claim had run, but attorneys were able to procure a settlement for plaintiff, trial court properly granted summary judgment to attorneys in plaintiff's subsequent suit against attorneys for malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff could not prove damages since plaintiff obtained a recovery plaintiff was not legally entitled to.

Double jeopardy clauses do not prohibit multiple conviction for the offense of aggravated assault resulting in great bodily injury and battery with serious bodily injury.

Double jeopardy clauses do not prohibit multiple conviction for the offense of aggravated assault resulting in great bodily injury and battery with serious bodily injury.