Blatz

Blatz v. MLG CA4/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 2, 2024G062332California2,955 words

Opinion

Opinion

Goethals, J.

FACTS

The FAC alleges that in 2010 the Clients became involved in a business venture with Michael Failla, who invested money into an existing company formed by 1 All statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise noted.

2 Campos. Due to a dispute with another investor, Steve Vande Vegt, Failla established a new company which acquired many of the assets of the business established by Campos. Although Failla allegedly promised to bring Blatz and Campos into the new company as principals, he never did; Noll however was briefly an employee. In 2011, Vande Vegt filed a lawsuit against the new company, Failla and others, including the Clients. The Lawyers represented Vande Vegt in the litigation, which was settled in 2013. As part of the settlement, the parties collectively released each other from future claims. After the Vande Vegt litigation was resolved, the Clients expected Failla to fulfill his promise to bring them into the company as officers, directors, shareholders and employees; instead, he refused. The Clients filed a lawsuit against Failla in 2015, and they engaged the Lawyers to represent them. The Failla litigation settled in December of 2018;…

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.