Price

Jocer Enterprises, Inc. v. Price

Good Law
107 Cal. Rptr. 3d 539·183 Cal. App. 4th 559·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 464
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 5, 2010B218266California6,039 words

Opinion

Opinion

Manella, J.

In the underlying action, appellants Jocer Enterprises, Inc. (Jocer), Spencer Graffam, and Jodi Graffam sued respondents Ernest Price and Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley (Ropers) for legal malpractice and indemnity. The trial court sustained respondents’ demurrer to the second amended complaint without leave to amend on the ground that appellants’ claims were time-barred under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Spencer and Jodi Graffam (Graffams) control Jocer, which employed Laura Attig as a sales representative. In November 2002, after Jocer discharged Attig, Jocer filed an action against Attig for misappropriation of trade secrets and sought injunctive relief (trade secrets action). Jocer was represented by Attorney Price, who is employed by Ropers. Following the presentation of evidence at trial, the trial court granted nonsuit on Jocer’s claims, found that Jocer had applied for an injunction in bad faith, and awarded Attig $95,600 in attorney fees as a sanction against Jocer. In August 2004, judgment was entered in Attig’s favor. The judgment and fee award were affirmed on appeal,…

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.