Christopher Cooke appeared on KALW 91.7 FM radio show “Your Legal Rights” on November 9. The topic of the show was legal issues regarding cryptocurrencies, a form of digital asset. You can hear Chris answer listeners’ and host Jeff Hayden’s questions, and discuss these issues online, by clicking here:
https://www.kalw.org/post/your-legal-rights-whats-all-buzz-about-crypto-currency
Steven Ruth Scores Victory in Court of Appeal: MCK Clients to Recover Their Attorney’s Fees.
California Civil Code section 1717 establishes mutuality of remedy where a contractual provision entitles only one party to the contract to its attorney’s fees if it prevails in an action on the contract.
In Reynolds Metals Co. v. Alperson, 25 Cal. 3d 124 (1979), the Supreme Court held that where a party is sued on such a contract as an alter ego of a contracting party and the alleged alter ego prevails on the contract claim, the alleged alter ego is entitled to his attorney’s fees. Since the plaintiff would have been entitled to attonrey’s fees had it proved that the defendants were liable as alter egos, Section 1717 ensures that the defendants are entitled to their fees if the plaintiff fails to prove its case.
Steven Ruth represents clients who were sued as alleged alter egos of a corporation. Our clients obtained summary judgment and moved for an award of attoney’s fees. The trial court ordered that they not recover their fees because they were not signatories to the contract.
California Court of Appeal recently reversed that order. It held that “Reynolds is on all fours with this case” and directed the trial court to determine the amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded.
Fewer than twenty percent of all appeals in civil cases result in a reversal.
The action will be remanded to the Superior Court early next year.
Steven Ruth Obtains $568,617 Judgment for Lender
One of the focuses of Steven Ruth’s practice is representing plaintiffs in business disputes involving claims of fraud and breach of contract. Mr. Ruth recently obtained a $568,617 judgment in San Francisco Superior Court on behalf of a foreign lender. The client asserted claims for fraud, breach of contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing against a debtor and two additional defendants who pledged stock to secure the debt.
Christopher Cooke to Speak at Cal CPA Fraud and Financial Investigations Section on 2/23/2018
Christopher Cooke and Brian Sullivan, CPA (website http://www.sullivanco.net/) will be making a presentation entitled “Retainer Scams What CPAs Should Know” at the Los Angeles meeting of the Fraud and Financial Investigations Section of the Society of California CPAs (see http://www.calcpa.org/events-and-programs/event-details?id=2d16bc41-d32e-4eec-8d59-3284ef61e433).
Steven Ruth Obtains Summary Judgment on Claims for Investor Liablity
Since 2012, Steven Ruth has been representing clients in a dispute arising out of one client’s employment at and efforts to purchase a restaurant. Three of these clients were brought in as cross-defendants on the eve of the original trial date. One of these clients successfully moved to quash service of summons, but the other two remained as parties to the action. Cross-complainant asserted that they were liable as parties to alter egos of, investors in, or partners or joint venturers with the corporate cross-defendant.
We moved for summary judgment on behalf of the two remaining late-added cross-defendants. We also moved for summary adjudication on the claim for declaratory relief as to the other cross-defendants on the grounds that cross-complainant sought relief for an existing breach, not to obtain prospective relief.
The Court recently granted our motion in its entirety. The Court found that
- There was no evidence that the late-added parties were parties to the subject agreements.
- There was no evidence that the late-added parties owned or controlled the corporate cross-defendant.
- There was no evidence of a partnership or joint venture.
- Cross-complainant sought relief for an existing breach, not to obtain prospective relief.
The Court’s order leaves cross-complainant with claims only for breach of contract and an accounting against the two remaining cross-defendants.
MCK’s Motion to Dismiss Federal Court Class Action Granted with Prejudice
On Thursday, July 7, 2016, the Hon. Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court in San Francisco granted Murphy Cooke Kobrick’s motion to dismiss the third amended class action complaint filed against firm client Alfred Lopez in the case Siegal et. al. v. Gamble, et al., U.S.D.C. N.D. Cal. Case No. 3:13-cv-03570-RS with prejudice. The decision, if not appealed, ends a class action lawsuit against MCK’s client. The plaintiffs, a group of investors in a limited partnership managed by Tri-Valley Corporation, an oil and gas exploration firm based in Bakersfield, California, had sought $97 million against the firm’s client and other defendants. MCK partner Christopher C. Cooke prepared, and argued the successful motion on behalf of the firm, which was third motion to dismiss he had filed in the case. See related news story: http://www.law360.com/articles/815217?ta_id=561592&utm_source=targeted-alerts&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=case-article-alert