Cole

Cole v. Hammond

Good Law
249 Cal. Rptr. 3d 878·37 Cal. App. 5th 912
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 24, 2019B292331California5,347 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Collins, J.

*915 INTRODUCTION

In a prior action, Neil Gieleghem and respondent Gregory Cole, both attorneys, obtained a $500,000 judgment against Anthony Sheen, a landlord, based on unpaid fees for legal services they rendered to Sheen. In satisfaction of that judgment, Cole and Gieleghem obtained an assignment of rent from Sheen for a residential property.

Appellants Betty and Ruth Hammond (the Hammonds) were Sheen's tenants. Cole and Gieleghem demanded that the *880 Hammonds pay their rent directly to them pursuant to the assignment. The Hammonds refused, and Cole sued, alleging breach of contract and related claims. Gieleghem appeared as Cole's attorney in the lawsuit.

A few months after the initiation of the lawsuit in 2011, the Hammonds began paying their rent to Cole and Gieleghem. After the parties conducted some initial discovery, the case languished for several years. In January 2018, the Hammonds moved for mandatory dismissal of the action for failure to bring the case to trial within five years, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.360. 1 A mandatory dismissal would be considered a determination on the merits entitling the prevailing party to attorney fees under Civil…

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.