Basinger

Basinger v. Rogers & Wells

Bad Law
1990 Cal. App. LEXIS 446·220 Cal. App. 3d 16·269 Cal. Rptr. 332
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 8, 1990D009842California2,815 words

Opinion

Opinion

Nares, J.

Rogers & Wells appeals from an order vacating voluntary dismissals and ordering entry of judgment nunc pro tunc to enforce a settlement agreement and award plaintiffs interest on tardy payment of settlement money. Rogers & Wells contends the order must be reversed because the court lacked jurisdiction once dismissals had been filed. Alternatively, on the merits Rogers & Wells contends it did not pay late because the condition precedent to its obligation to pay—Robert G. Basinger’s general release—had not been furnished, and in any event the settlement agreement does not provide for interest.

We determine the court had jurisdiction to vacate the dismissals, but reverse because (1) respondents made an insufficient showing to justify vacating the dismissals; and (2) on the undisputed facts, Rogers & Wells did not owe respondents interest.

I

Facts and Procedure

Respondents are 70 plaintiffs (Respondents) who sued Rogers & Wells for damages arising out of the J. David Dominelli (J. David) ponzi scheme. Robert G. Basinger (Basinger) is one of the 70 plaintiffs.

Respondents and Rogers & Wells settled. Under the settlement agreement (Agreement), Rogers & Wells agreed to pay…

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.