Orton v. Gibbs
Plaintiff Kevin Orton appeals from a judgment in favor of defendants Timothy J. Gibbs and The Gibbs Law Firm in his legal malpractice action. This appeal arises out of an action previously before us (Orton v. Virtual Fonlink, Inc. (Nov. 18, 2004, G032862) [nonpub. opn.]). As set forth in that opinion, plaintiff sued Virtual to foreclose on a security interest in a patent assigned to it. Plaintiff prevailed in his action but filed a cross-appeal from the $60,000 limit on the amount of debt secured by the patent, claiming he was entitled to $180,000. (Id. at p. 2.)
There were two security agreements and financing statements at issue in the first appeal. (Orton v. Virtual Fonlink, Inc., supra, G032862, pp. 2-3.) The first security agreement and financing statement secured a $60,000 loan with a patent. (Id. at pp. 2-3, 5, 6.) A second security agreement and financing statement secured a $120,000 loan. (Id. at p. 3.) The collateral securing the loan was described as telephone units. (Ibid.) The financing statement contained the following language: Additional security as referred to under [first financing statement] U.S. patents of debtor . . . amount increased to $180,000. (Ibid.)
Plaintiff also challenges the trial courts reliance on collateral estoppel in granting the motion for summary judgment. That is not a basis for our decision. Finally, the value of the patent is not relevant to the issue before us.
The judgment is affirmed.
Comments on Orton v. Gibbs