Brown

Brown v. De Rugeris

Good Law
155 Cal. Rptr. 301·1979 Cal. App. LEXIS 1728·92 Cal. App. 3d 895
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 10, 1979Civ. 44833California908 words

Opinion

Opinion

Caldecott, J.

Plaintiff Mary Jane Brown appeals from a judgment, following a court trial, in favor of respondent John De Rugeris.

Brown filed a complaint against De Rugeris for declaratory relief and an accounting, alleging that she and defendant had entered into oral and written agreements whereby Brown was to be an equal partner in a business engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of a device known as the J.D.R. Carburetor [developed by De Rugeris]. Defendant De Rugeris was represented by attorney Samuel D. O’Brien. On November 3, 1977, approximately one month prior to trial, the plaintiff filed a motion for an order discharging defendant’s attorney, citing California Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 2-111, rule 5-102 and rule 4-101. At commencement of trial, the judge remarked that he noticed a motion to discharge attorney and asked what happened to it. Brown’s attorney stated the motion was never heard, “it just went off calendar.” No further reference was made to this motion during trial.

During trial, O’Brien was called as a witness by appellant Brown under Evidence Code section 776. The questioning was limited to the date that O’Brien first saw a document that…

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.