Sickle

Sickle v. Gilbert

Bad Law
127 Cal. Rptr. 3d 542·196 Cal. App. 4th 1495·2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 849
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 29, 2011No. C062657California13,792 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Robie, J.

In this action, plaintiff Beth Van Sickle filed a complaint against her former attorney, defendant Gregory F. Gilbert, arising out of his alleged mismanagement, years earlier, of certain properties Van Sickle had received in a divorce in which Gilbert had represented her. Van Sickle included in her complaint a cause of action for an accounting, and, as is generally true in accounting cases, she did not include in her complaint a demand for a specific amount of money from Gilbert in connection with that cause of action. (See Ely v. Gray (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1257, 1261-1262 [ 274 Cal.Rptr. 536 ].) She also included in her complaint a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, in which she likewise failed to include a prayer for a specific amount of damages. There is also no evidence Van Sickle ever served Gilbert with a statement identifying the amount she sought to recover from him in this action, whether as damages or otherwise.

When Gilbert failed to comply with an order compelling him to answer Van Sickle’s special interrogatories and respond to her demands for production of documents, the trial court granted Van Sickle’s request for a terminating sanction and…

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.