Deuschel
Deuschel v. Michelman & Robinson CA2/8
Opinion
Opinion
Rubin, J.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Because this appeal is from a demurrer, we rely on the allegations of appellant’s complaint without judging their veracity. In 2007, appellant Michael Deuschel lent $50,000 to Edward and Donna Vodicka and their company; we refer collectively to the Vodickas and their company, who are not parties to this appeal, as the Vodickas. When the Vodickas defaulted on the loan and damaged personal property that appellant had stored with them, appellant hired respondent law firm Michelman & Robinson, LLP, to sue the Vodickas for damages. In November 2008, Michelman & Robinson, LLP, filed a complaint against the Vodickas. The complaint alleged the Vodickas had obtained the loan from appellant through fraud. The Vodickas did not answer appellant’s complaint, and the court entered their default. In August 2010, respondent Michelman & Robinson filed pleadings with the court to prove-up appellant’s damages. The pleadings were defective, however, in several ways, the particulars of which are not important here other than they did not seek recovery of the entire amount of almost $400,000 in damages to which appellant believed he was entitled from the Vodickas’ fraud. Relying…