Soliz

Soliz v. Spielman

Good Law
118 Cal. Rptr. 127·1974 Cal. App. LEXIS 743·44 Cal. App. 3d 70·40 Cal. Comp. Cases 130
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 26, 1974Civ. 43695California771 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kingsley, J.

On November 2, 1968, Soliz was injured while in the employ of a company for which Home was the workmen’s compensation carrier. As a result of that accident, Home paid benefits to Soliz in the amount of $26,831.22.

On November 6, 1968, Soliz retained defendants Spielman, Ghitterman and Steele (hereinafter “the attorneys”) to bring an action against third parties alleged to have been the cause of the industrial injury. The attorneys allowed the statute of limitations to run on that cause of action.

On May 27, 1970, Soliz brought suit against the attorneys for malpractice. Thereafter Home filed a complaint in intervention in the malpractice suit and also filed therein a notice of lien claim. After the malpractice suit had progressed for two days, Soliz, without the knowledge or consent of Home, settled the malpractice action. The trial court then granted the attorneys judgment on the pleadings and struck Home’s notice of lien. This appeal followed.

The present appeal presents a question on which there is no square authority. It is admitted that, had the attorneys duly filed and prosecuted the proposed action against the third parties and recovered a judgment therein in…

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.