Heller

Heller v. Pillsbury Madison & Sutro

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 1067·50 Cal. App. 4th 1367·58 Cal. Rptr. 2d 336·96 Daily Journal DAR 13868·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8400
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 19, 1996B096769California10,187 words

Opinion

Opinion

Woods, J.

Plaintiff Philip Heller appeals from the postjudgment order awarding costs, and the judgment entered for defendant law firm Pillsbury Madison & Sutro and individual defendants, Pillsbury partners T. Neal McNamara, Charles Patterson, Walter Stafford and Rodney Peck. Heller had filed the instant action as a result of his expulsion from the Pillsbury firm. Heller contests the preliminary court hearing where the court found the law firm’s 1992 partnership agreement, providing for expulsion of partners, fully integrated and binding on Heller. He also challenges the trial court’s nonsuit on four of his causes of action and the judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 630, subdivision (f) following a mistrial resulting from a deadlocked jury on the remaining cause of action before the jury. Heller additionally contests the trial court’s dismissal of his accounting cause of action.

Factual Background

In January 1990, Heller joined the Pillsbury Madison & Sutro law firm as a lateral partner in the firm’s Los Angeles office. This San Francisco firm had some 225 partners. Soon thereafter, Heller signed the firm’s 1990 partnership agreement.

Either immediately or soon after…

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.