legal news


Register | Forgot Password

Herman v. Simard
Plaintiff Edward Herman supplied equipment and materials to George C. Foss Company (Foss), an electrical subcontractor, on three large construction projects. Although the general contractor reimbursed Foss for expenditures, Foss failed to fully reimburse Herman for the equipment and materials he supplied on the projects. Defendants Elwyn L. Simard, Tad Simard, Steve Simard, and Tony Velez (collectively defendants) were officers and shareholders of Foss. After Foss ceased doing business, Herman filed suit against Foss for breach of contract, and against Foss and defendants for conversion and violation of the Unfair Practices Act. After the court entered a default judgment against Foss, defendants moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion and denied Hermans motion to amend his complaint. Herman appeals, arguing undisputed facts reveal defendants converted Hermans property and violated the Unfair Practices Act. Herman also challenges the trial courts denial of his motion to amend his complaint. Court affirm the judgment.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale