Segal

The Swahn Group, Inc. v. Segal

Good Law
108 Cal. Rptr. 3d 651·183 Cal. App. 4th 831·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 480
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 7, 2010C056970California7,450 words

Opinion

Opinion

Blease, J.

This legal malpractice case tenders the doctrine of judicial estoppel, which precludes a party from taking inconsistent positions in separate proceedings where the position in the first proceeding was adopted by the court or accepted by it as true. (Jackson v. County of Los Angeles (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 171, 181 [ 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 96 ] (Jackson).) Judicial estoppel differs from collateral estoppel or equitable estoppel in that it is focused on the relationship between the litigant and the judicial system and not on the relationship of the parties. (Id. at p. 183.)

The issue arises in a malpractice action initiated by plaintiffs, The Swahn Group, Inc., Roger Swahn and Pamela Swahn (collectively, the Swahns) in which the trial court sustained the demurrer of defendants Malcolm S. Segal, James Kirby, and Segal & Kirby (collectively, S&K). S&K had represented plaintiffs as their attorneys in an action against Gary Tharaldson and his various business enterprises for breach of a contract to develop 20 hotels. On the advice of S&K the breach of contract action was settled. Plaintiffs changed attorneys and brought an action to rescind the settlement agreement. The rescission…

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.