Maggi

Maggi v. Superior Court

Good Law
119 Cal. App. 4th 1218·15 Cal. Rptr. 3d 161·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1028·2004 Daily Journal DAR 7937·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5828
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 29, 2004G030802California2,695 words

Opinion

Opinion

Moore, J.

As a remedy for the apparent violation of a protective order, the trial court entered several orders prohibiting petitioners and their counsel from contacting certain third party witnesses without court permission. When sought, permission to do so was denied. Because the orders limit the constitutional rights of petitioners and their counsel without legal justification, the petition is granted.

I

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Petitioners Carlos Maggi and James Montagano allege they invested in several limited partnerships involving real estate. Real parties in interest (real parties) David Alkosser and Israel Weinberg were the general partners. Petitioners were apparently made aware of the partnerships by their tax accountant, Ban Brand, who was also a general "or limited partner in real parties’ various endeavors. Brand served as tax preparer for the partnerships. In 1994, he asked real parties to buy out his partnership interests. (Real parties characterize Brand’s actions as an “attempt to extract monies” from them.) Whatever the circumstances, real parties did buy out Brand, but he continued preparing the partnerships’ tax returns. Petitioners sold their…

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.