Miller v. Flemate CA6

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 28, 2015H040157California2,335 words

Opinion

Opinion

BACKGROUND

The Underlying Action Brothers Antonio and Martin Castaneda (the Castanedas sued Miller for breach of contract, professional negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty. The claims arose from

1 Subsequent unspecified statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. then-attorney2 Miller’s representation of the Castanedas in various legal matters over the course of several years. The Castanedas retained Flemate to represent them in their suit against Miller. The case proceeded to jury trial in January 2012. At trial, Miller brought three motions for nonsuit. The first nonsuit motion challenged the breach of contract claim, the second nonsuit motion challenged the professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims, and the third nonsuit motion also challenged the professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims. The trial court denied all three motions for nonsuit. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Miller on all causes of action. The trial court accordingly entered a judgment in favor of Miller. The Present Action In March 2013, Miller sued Flemate for malicious prosecution. The complaint alleged that Flemate prosecuted the underlying…

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.