Marshall

Marshall v. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 829·37 Cal. App. 4th 1397·44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 339·44 Cal. Rptr. 339·95 Daily Journal DAR 11529
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 24, 1995B086555California5,508 words

Opinion

Opinion

Lillie, J.

In this action for legal malpractice, plaintiff Marshall appeals from judgment of dismissal entered after the court sustained without leave to amend the demurrer to complaint of defendants Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Ronald E. Gother, Anne K. Hilker, and David H. Kennedy on the ground that the action was barred by the statute of limitations.

Allegations of the Complaint and Procedural Background

On December 3, 1993, plaintiff filed complaint for damages for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty arising out of defendants’ provision of legal services to plaintiff in connection with negotiations and drafting of a written agreement memorializing the terms of plaintiff’s incentive and compensation plan offered to him by a publishing company, Marshall and Swift, a limited partnership.

The publishing company had been established by plaintiff’s grandfather in 1932; in 1972, the general partners were plaintiff’s father, J.W. Marshall, and F.C. Swift; in 1975 plaintiff began employment at Marshall and Swift and learned all aspects of the business in order to take over its operations; plaintiff was subsequently promoted to manager of the marketing, sales and education…

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.