Nakahara

Nakahara v. Cohen CA2/2

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 29, 2024B321385California2,446 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Allegations in Nakahara’s Lawsuit In her unverified second amended complaint (SAC), Nakahara alleges that Cohen has been her attorney for many years. In 2017, Cohen asked to borrow money from Nakahara, who felt pressured to agree because he represented her in pending legal matters. She loaned him $111,902 to pay his rent; he promised to repay her within one year. The loan was not memorialized in writing. The SAC alleges that Cohen failed to repay the loan and continued to charge Nakahara for legal services. He had her sign a contingent fee agreement in 2018. She did not want to rock the boat by asking for repayment, for fear he would cease representing her.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

2 In 2019, the controller for Nakahara’s business asked Cohen about the debt. Cohen remained silent, which Nakahara “interpreted as meaning he acknowledged the debt and was still intending to pay it back.” In 2021, after Cohen “made it clear that he did not intend to pay back the loan,” Nakahara sued him individually and as trustee for a family trust.2 The SAC asserts claims for money lent; breach of an oral contract; and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.