Platt

Platt v. Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate Services

Bad Law
1990 Cal. App. LEXIS 120·217 Cal. App. 3d 1439·266 Cal. Rptr. 601
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 15, 1990D009465California3,406 words

Opinion

Opinion

Nares, J.

Shearn H. Platt, Martha Lessman Katz, Stephen L. Victor, a professional corporation, Rudick & Platt, a professional corporation, and Rudick, Platt & Victor (collectively, Attorneys) appeal from a judgment dismissing their first amended cross-complaint for equitable indemnity against Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate Services (Coldwell Banker). Attorneys, who have been sued for legal malpractice in the underlying action, contend their cross-complaint should not have been dismissed because (1) equivalent relief is not available by an affirmative defense; and (2) there is no applicable public policy exception to the broad rule permitting one joint tortfeasor to cross-complain against another for equitable indemnity. We agree and reverse.

I

Facts and Procedure

In 1987 William R. Contreras (Contreras), Park Manor Hotel Investors (PMHI), a limited partnership, and six individual investors/limited partners (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed an amended complaint against Attorneys for legal malpractice. Coldwell Banker, the cross-defendant sued by Attorneys for indemnity, is not a plaintiff in the underlying case.

Plaintiffs allege they employed Attorneys to represent them…

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.