 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Linden v. Siamas1/31/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Plaintiff Craig Linden sued John Siamas and the law firm of Jackson Tufts Cole & Black LLP (Jackson Tufts) for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and fraud arising from defendants' representation in an arbitration proceeding. The trial court granted summary judgment, ruling that defendants had shown plaintiff could not prove essential elements of his claims and that plaintiff had failed to produce competent evidence raising a triable issue of material fact. We affirm.
Background
Plaintiff invented a small-packaged cogeneration unit, a machine that consumes a fuel like natural gas and produces electricity and thermal energy. He developed the device through his company, Design Systems and Research Development, Inc. (DSRD) and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Micro Cogen, Inc. (MCI). In 1991 he sold DSRD and MCI to Proven Alternatives, Inc. (PAI). As a result of the transaction plaintiff became an employee of PAI and was to receive one-third of its net profits from foreign sublicensing transactions.
In February 1993 plaintiff petitioned to arbitrate alleged breaches of his purchase, license and employment agreements with PAI. Two years later he retained defendants to represent him in the arbitration. He had learned of Siamas and Jackson Tufts from his friend, Warren Davis, whom defendants were then representing in a suit against PAI.
The arbitration hearings began in July 1995 and continued for 26 days over the next 19 months, concluding in April 1996. Early in the representation Siamas restructured plaintiff's claims. In September 1995 he filed an amended pleading containing 16 claims for relief, 4 of which were later withdrawn for strategic reasons.
The panel issued its final award in September 1996. Plaintiff was awarded $886,161 for breach of the license and purchase agreements, wrongful termination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The panel also awarded plaintiff $100,000 in punitive damages and ordered PAI to pay arbitration costs. Plaintiff's remaining claims, including for attorneys' fees, were rejected.
The attorney-client agreement between plaintiff and Jackson Tufts by its terms terminated after the arbitration: "JTCB shall represent Client . . . in connection with a pending arbitration proceeding and shall prosecute Client's claims as necessary and in the manner JTCB deems best, through the settlement, arbitration, dismissal or other disposition of the prosecuted claims. . . . JTCB shall not have any obligation under this Agreement or otherwise to prosecute or represent Client in any appeal, rehearing or other post-arbitration matter based on Client's claims or to represent Client in any other matter . . . ." Siamas nonetheless offered to continue representing plaintiff at no additional charge after the arbitration so long as there were no actual or potential conflicts of interest between Jackson Tufts and plaintiff. Siamas was concerned that plaintiff wished to petition to "correct" the final award to include attorneys' fees, a strategy Siamas believed lacked merit, would delay and endanger plaintiff's ability to collect on the arbitration award, and could expose plaintiff to the risk of an award of fees in favor of PAI. Accordingly, he advised plaintiff in September 1996 that Jackson Tufts would help him confirm the arbitration
Page 1 2 3 4 5 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|