Warren

Warren v. Wasserman, Comden & Casselman

Good Law
1990 Cal. App. LEXIS 565·220 Cal. App. 3d 1297·271 Cal. Rptr. 579
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 29, 1990G008686California2,090 words

Opinion

Opinion

Cox, J.

Plaintiff David Warren appeals from orders sustaining a demurrer as to one count and granting summary judgment as to the other two counts of his complaint for malicious prosecution and abuse of process. We affirm.

Facts

In January 1985 Warren filed an action for breach of contract and misrepresentation on behalf of his clients, Jane and Thomas Delaney, against Jay and Karin Evans and General Insurance Contractors (GIC). Defendants, who were represented by Wasserman, Comden & Casselman and its associate, Jeffrey A. Slott, cross-complained against Warren on theories of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, declaratory relief and indemnification. Warren had been the Evanses’ attorney and GIC’s corporate counsel until he was dismissed in April 1984, and it was alleged he negotiated the agreement (which was the subject of the complaint) on the Evanses’ behalf.

The complaint and cross-complaint went to trial in October 1988. After cross-complainants rested, Warren made an oral motion for nonsuit on the ground the cross-complaint was barred by the one-year statute of limitations contained in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6. Warren argued, and the trial court…

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.