Arnall

Arnall v. Superior Court

Good Law
118 Cal. Rptr. 3d 379·190 Cal. App. 4th 360·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 1993
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 22, 2010No. B225264California5,555 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Manella, J.

In real party in interest Alan D. Liker’s action to recover his fees under his service contracts with petitioners, the trial court denied petitioners’ motion for summary adjudication. Petitioners seek a writ directing the trial court to vacate the denial of summary adjudication and to enter a new order granting the motion. We grant the petition for writ of mandate.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

There are no material disputes regarding the following facts: Liker is an attorney who specializes in taxation matters and complex business transactions. In December 2005, Liker entered into a service agreement with petitioners Dawn Arnall and Ameriquest Mortgage Company (Ameriquest agreement). The agreement obliged Liker to provide advisory services aimed at minimizing “the adverse economic impact” arising from specified taxable income. Under the fee provisions, Liker was to receive a stipend of $20,000 per month for nine months, and a “[s]uccess [f]ee” amounting to 2 percent of specified reductions in “adverse economic impact” and other “economic savings.” In January 2007, the parties modified the Ameriquest agreement. As modified, the agreement acknowledged that Liker had…

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.