Paul Martinez v. Richard Sharpe
Published: Jul. 13, 2002 | Result Date: Jun. 17, 2002 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 01CC02714 Verdict – $1,275,000
Judge
Court
Orange Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Michael J. Grobaty
(Grobaty & Pitet LLP)
Defendant
Joel A. Osman
(Parker Shaffie LLP)
Experts
Plaintiff
Robert K. Sall
(Sall Spencer Callas & Krueger, ALC)
(technical)
Peter Goodell
(technical)
Neal Roberts
(technical)
Defendant
Richard Heaton
(technical)
Michael Hickey
(technical)
William Curtis
(technical)
Facts
In June 1998, the plaintiffs hired the defendant attorney to represent them in connection with the sale of their
furniture business and lease back of their manufacturing plant.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant attorney took affirmative steps to advise the plaintiffs and structure the
transaction.
They also alleged that, at the closing of the transaction, the defendant attorney advised the plaintiffs he had
reviewed the final agreements, approved of their content and that the plaintiffs should go ahead and sign them.
According to the defendant, the evidence is in dispute as to the scope of duties assumed by the defendant. The
defendant denies having approved the agreement or instructing the plaintiffs to sign it.
Subsequent to the closing, the buyers/lessees defaulted on the payments for their purchase of the stock. The
plaintiffs were forced to engage in expensive litigation against the buyers.
According to the plaintiffs, after the default occurred, they discovered that the defendant attorney had failed to
take proper steps to ensure the plaintiffs had perfected security interests in the valuable assets of their business.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff made a policy limits demand of $500,000 before trial. The defendant never formally submitted an offer but indicated a willingness to settle between $100,000 and $200,000 at the mandatory settlement conference.
Damages
The plaintiffs allegedly sustained approximately $1.3 million in damages relating to the losses associated with the under valuation of their business and lease. The plaintiffs also claimed approximately $300,000 in damages relating to litigation expenses incurred as a result of the negligently drafted transaction.
Other Information
The judgment was for the plaintiffs in the amount of $1.5 million (gross). The plaintiffs were found 15 percent comparatively negligent resulting in a net verdict to the plaintiffs of $1,275,000.
Deliberation
eight hours
Poll
12-0 (liability and damages), 9-3 (apportionment of comparative negligence)
Length
six days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390