Lilienthal & Fowler v. Superior Court

Caution
12 Cal. App. 4th 1848·16 Cal. Rptr. 2d 458·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 113·93 Daily Journal DAR 1824·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 980
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 5, 1993A058440California2,204 words

Opinion

Opinion

Benson, J.

The issue raised by this petition for writ of mandate is whether the trial court may refuse to rule on the merits of a summary adjudication motion made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f), when such an adjudication would not dispose of an entire cause of action because two separate and distinct wrongfiil acts are combined in the same cause of action. We determine that it may not and that the writ should issue.

Petitioners Lilienthal & Fowler et al., are defendants in an action filed by real parties in interest, Rodney Karr and Willard Gersbach, for legal malpractice. The case arises out of legal services that petitioners provided to real parties at different times on two separate and distinct matters. The first matter, a representation which concluded, at the latest on March 15, 1987, involved Robert Murillo and the right of Mr. Murillo to occupy a room in a building owned by real parties on Steiner Street in San Francisco. The second representation, in June 1989, involved Steven Barton and the purchase of real property on Divisadero Street in San Francisco. The legal services petitioners provided with respect to the Murillo matter had…

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.