Roy

Roy v. Steinberg CA2/4

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 30, 2013B232053California4,319 words

Opinion

Opinion

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff and appellant Ken Roy appeals from the judgment dismissing his claims for breach of contract and legal malpractice against defendants and respondents Robert K. Steinberg and the Law Offices of Robert K. Steinberg (collectively referred to as Steinberg). The trial court sustained Steinberg‟s demurrer on the ground that Roy lacked standing to bring either claim because he was not in privity with Steinberg. Roy contends that the court incorrectly found that he was not a party to the retainer agreements on which the two claims are based. He further contends that the court should have granted him leave to amend to plead the existence of oral and implied agreements between Steinberg and Roy that give Roy standing to sue. We find no error, and affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Although Roy is now the sole remaining plaintiff, Griffin Broadband Communications, Inc. (Griffin) and Total TV of Fort Irwin, LLC (Total TV) were the original two plaintiffs who sued Steinberg.1 Their judicial council form complaint, filed on August 11, 2009, alleged causes of action for breach of contract and general negligence on a legal malpractice theory. 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.