Moncrief

Moncrief v. Clark

Good Law
189 Cal. Rptr. 3d 864·2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 632·238 Cal. App. 4th 1000
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 21, 2015H040098California2,358 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rushing, J.

Appellants are Paul W. Moncrief (Moncrief) et al., a California attorney and his firm, and respondents are A. James Clark (Clark) et al., an Arizona attorney and his firm.

Moncrief was sued for legal malpractice arising from a failed purchase of farm equipment. In response, Moncrief cross-claimed against Clark, the attorney who represented the farm equipment company, for misrepresentations he made in connection with the purchase.

Moncrief is appealing the trial court’s grant of Clark’s motion to quash service of summons and complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Statement of the Facts and Case

Andrew Smith Company (Smith) is a California general partnership. In January 2010, Smith hired Moncrief to perform due diligence in connection with Smith’s purchase of farm equipment from Texas Hill Farms, located in Yuma, Arizona. Texas Hill Farms was represented by Clark, an Arizona attorney.

As part of his due diligence, Moncrief performed a Uniform Commercial Code search regarding Texas Hill Farms’s ownership of the equipment that was the subject of the sale. In addition, while he was in California, Moncrief called Clark in Arizona to discuss the ownership of 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.