Facts

Victor Makras contracted to purchase real property in San Francisco at the price of $500,000. Makras then assigned the contract to Plaintiff Jimmy Jen at a price of $65,000. Jen paid Makras with a check, but then placed a stop on it before Makras could cash it. Just prior to the close of escrow, Jen asked the sellers of the property to extend the escrow period in order for him to be able to obtain a loan. Otherwise, Jen claimed he would back out of the deal. The sellers refused to extend the escrow period. Jen informed Makras of the sellers' refusal to extend because they had another interested buyer. Jen was unable to obtain a loan before close of escrow. The sellers canceled the deal and decided to enter a new agreement with the other buyer. Makras sued Jen for $65,000. Two months after the failed transaction, the sellers' agent contacted Jen and requested an escrow instruction canceling the escrow. Defendant Medlin Real Estate Law Group advised Jen to file a cross-complaint for specific performance of the purchase contract. Jen recorded a notice of pendency of action pertaining to the property. As a result, the new buyers were unable to close their transaction. The sellers demanded that the notice of pendency of action be withdrawn. After their demands for dismissal of the action failed, the sellers filed a motion to expunge. The court ordered the notice of pendency of action to be expunged. It also partially awarded attorney fees and costs. Medlin sought withdrawal as attorney of record for Jen. Jen hired Matthew Guichard to represent him. Guichard settled the matter relating to Makras in the amount of $105,000 and the matter relating to the sellers for $95,565. Jen paid approximately $50,000 to Guichard, Tarkoff & Portello in attorney fees.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant contended that it represented the plaintiff in the action against Makras. The defendant proceeded under the theory that Makras had breached a fiduciary duty to the plaintiff. Makras had previously acted as the plaintiff's real estate and lending broker. The defendant then recommended filing a cross-complaint, alleging that the sellers of the property had anticipatorily breached the contract. A lis pendens was also filed against the property with the cross-complaint. The defendant further contended that after the court granted the motion to expunge the lis pendens, the defendant offered to voluntarily withdraw it. The sellers' attorney, Robert White, accepted the offer after some delay but did not record the withdrawal until several weeks later. Thereafter, the cross-complaint was also voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. The sellers went forward to file a cross-complaint against the plaintiff, alleging breach of contract and malicious prosecution. The defendant contended that it then informed the plaintiff that there may be a possible conflict of interest (per plaintiff's counsel, Jen denied this). White then sued the defendant for malicious prosecution because of the possibility that the plaintiff would assert an advice of counsel defense. The plaintiff then obtained new counsel, Matthew Guichard. According to the defendant, the plaintiff settled the malicious prosecution by guaranteeing the sellers would receive a recovery up to $85,000. According to plaintiff's counsel, this was later waived. The plaintiff also settled with Makras for an amount of $105,000.

Damages

$40,000 in damages which was the amount the plaintiff paid Makras to settle the matter pertaining to him in addition to $65,000 he paid to Makras on the original complaint. $4,873 to the sellers for attorney fees for filing the notice of pendency of action and $95,565 to settle the matter with the sellers. $145,757 for the defendant's attorney fees and $49,995 for Guichard's attorney fees.

Result

Defense verdict.