Fridman

Fridman v. Denison CA4/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 30, 2014G047864California6,090 words

Opinion

Opinion

Moore, J.

FACTS

In April 2012, Fridman filed the instant case against the defendants, and on June 14, he filed the first amended complaint (the complaint). The complaint alleged that in June 2006, Fridman became “the trustee for Nieves Lemanski.” At the time, Denison had medical power of attorney for her. She was a neighbor who lived close by. The Colamonicos were also neighbors. Although Fridman lived in Woodland Hills, he had worked in the City for more than 30 years and had a good reputation. According to the complaint, around October 2009, the defendants discussed among themselves that there were too many deliveries to Lemanski’s home, and therefore, Fridman must be running a business of some kind. These allegations were eventually reported to the City. Around the same time, they discussed that Lemanski had missed medication dosages, and that Fridman was responsible for elder abuse. The complaint alleged these statements were not privileged and made with knowledge of their falsity and no reasonable grounds to believe they were true. In response to the complaint to the City, police and paramedics performed a welfare check on Lemanski in October 28, 2009. Lemanski was “taken from the…

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.