Hourany v. Taxman CA2/7
Attorney Taxman and his law firm appeal an order under Civil Code section 1714.10 allowing Joseph and Veronique Hourany and Urvashi Sura to amend their complaint against Taxman’s clients, Rahul and Yogesh Paliwal and their related entities, to add allegations that Taxman conspired with the Paliwals to fraudulently induce the Houranys and Sura to invest over $1 million in the Paliwals’ ailing real estate venture. Taxman argues the proposed amended complaint failed to satisfy the prima facie pleading requirement section 1714.10, subdivision (a), imposes on civil conspiracy claims against an attorney. Taxman also raises several other arguments, including that he cannot defend himself without violating the attorney-client privilege, that the claims by the Houranys and Sura are derivative, and that the statute of limitations, laches, the litigation privilege, and the agent-immunity rule all bar the conspiracy claim against him.
Comments on Hourany v. Taxman CA2/7