Furia

Furia v. Helm

Good Law
111 Cal. App. 4th 945·4 Cal. Rptr. 3d 357
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 10, 2003A100102California5,567 words

Opinion

Opinion

Pollak, J.

Plaintiff David Furia, doing business as Furia Construction Company, appeal's from an adverse judgment entered after the court sustained without leave to amend the demurrer of defendant Hugh N. Helm III to Furia’s second amended complaint. The amended complaint alleged causes of action for legal malpractice and fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment, arising out of an agreement by Helm, an attorney representing Furia’s construction clients, to attempt to mediate differences between Furia and his clients. Although we have some misgivings about the manner in which Helm accepted dual responsibilities, we agree with the trial court that Furia has failed to allege facts entitling him to relief, and we therefore affirm.

Background

Furia was a licensed general contractor who, in 1998, was hired by Laurie and Larry Levin (the Levins) to remodel their Windsor home. Disputes arose after work had commenced, and the Levins went to their attorney, Helm, for advice. Following some discussions, Helm agreed to attempt to help resolve the differences. Although Furia characterized the role Helm agreed to play somewhat differently in each of his three complaints, Furia attached as…

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.