Bohbot

ACTION PERFORMANCE COMPANIES, INC. v. Bohbot

Good Law

420 F. Supp. 2d 1115·2006 WL 689520

United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaMarch 15, 2006CV 05-4458 JFW(RCX)California1,820 words

Opinion

Chapman, J.

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO ESTABLISH CRIME-FRAUD EXCEPTION TO ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE

On February 14, 2006, plaintiffs filed a notice of motion and motion to establish the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege and the supporting declarations of David Martin and George M. Bel-field, with exhibits. On February 22, 2006, defendant Jeff Bohbot, proceeding pro se, filed an opposition to the motion. On March 1, 2006, plaintiffs filed their reply. This matter is decided in Chambers, without oral argument, pursuant to Local Rule 7-15.

BACKGROUND

On July 7, 2005, plaintiffs Action Performance Companies, Inc. and Jeff Hamilton Collection, Inc., Arizona corporations, filed their First Amended Complaint, which is pending. In the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), plaintiffs have sued defendants Jeff Bohbot, aka Jeff Hamilton, Jeff Hamilton Industries, Inc., a California corporation, and Mercedes Bohbot (collectively “Bohbot defendants”), as well as defendants Rami Karim, and Why Not, Inc. dba Not Why, a California corporation, raising the following causes of action: (1) intentional misrepresentation (Cal.Civ. C. § 1710(1)); (2) negligent…

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.