Gladstone

Gladstone v. Hillel

Good Law
1988 Cal. App. LEXIS 826·203 Cal. App. 3d 977·250 Cal. Rptr. 372·8 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1097
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 15, 1988A036056California5,421 words

Opinion

Opinion

Newsom, J.

This appeal arises from a judgment secured by Mark Gladstone (hereafter Gladstone) against David Hillel, Mark Nhaissi, Master Diamond and Gem Trading, Inc., Master Diamond of California, Master Diamond, and Master Diamond Wholesale, Inc. (hereafter appellants). Gladstone brought the action against appellants, seeking equitable relief to recover possession of personal property and claiming damages on theories of conversion and fraud. After the parties waived jury trial, the case was tried before the Superior Court for the City and County of San Francisco. The court awarded Gladstone $90,400 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages and granted his requested equitable relief. On the cross-complaint, the court found in favor of Hillel and Nhaissi in the amount of $1,000. Appellants appeal from the judgment on the complaint and cross-complaint and the denial of their motion for new trial.

Gladstone is a craftsman of unique, limited edition jewelry. Sold as works of art, the jewelry derives its value from original design and meticulous hand crafting. The documentary record gives us only a few testimonials of its quality. Alan Revere, who directs a large jewelry…

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.