Gidding

Gidding v. Salama CA1/2

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 10, 2014A136071California5,586 words

Opinion

Opinion

Filed 6/10/14 Gidding v. Salama CA1/

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

JOHN GIDDING et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,

A136071

v. JOSEPH SALAMA et al., (San Francisco City and County Super. Ct. No. CGC-11-507519) Defendants and Respondents.

John Gidding, on behalf of himself and his company, Midshore Marketing, LP (Midshore) (collectively plaintiffs), appeals after the trial court granted the motion for reconsideration and enforcement of the parties’ settlement agreement brought by defendants Joseph Salama, John Schilt, and Tenax Law Group PC (Tenax) (collectively defendants), in this legal malpractice action. Gidding contends (1) because the settlement agreement was ambiguous as to the need for the signatures of defendants’ counsel, it…

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.