Plaintiff injured individual sought review of a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which dismissed claims as to defendant attorney in an action against several defendants for damages. Defendant attorney gave advice to his client, defendant psychologist, regarding execution of a document containing confidential information disclosed by plaintiff while in therapy.
Plaintiff injured individual filed an action against defendants, who were plaintiff’s ex-girlfriend, a psychologist, and the psychologist’s attorney. Alleging that defendants conspired to cause him harm, plaintiff pleaded several claims against defendant attorney, including breach of fiduciary duty, and inducing breach of contract, among other claims. Each of these allegations was premised on the theory that defendant attorney advised defendant psychologist to act in a fashion that breached various duties that the doctor purportedly owed to plaintiff by virtue of the psychotherapist-patient relationship. The complaint alleged that defendant attorney committed malpractice when he advocated the filing of a declaration containing information that plaintiff disclosed in confidence, to assist defendant ex-girlfriend with a palimony suit. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s judgment dismissing the claims against defendant attorney because plaintiff failed to state any cause of action. In particular, plaintiff failed to show that there was a conspiracy involving defendant attorney, and defendant attorney owed plaintiff no duty of care under a malpractice theory.
The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, which dismissed plaintiff injured individual’s claims as to defendant attorney in plaintiff’s action against several defendants. Plaintiff failed to state any cause of action against defendant attorney.
There were no employment attorney that were engaged nor retained by petitioner. Defendant contractor sought review of the decision of the Superior Court of San Mateo County (California) which entered a judgment for damages in favor of plaintiffs, buyers, in their complaint for breach of contract in the building of plaintiffs’ houses.
Defendant contractor challenged the damage award entered in favor of plaintiffs, buyers, and claimed that the measure of damages for breach of the construction contract should have been the difference in value between the house as planned and it value as built, the value theory. The court affirmed the judgment entered by the trial court, as the proper measure of damages for defendant’s breach was the cost of making the homes conform to the contract, the cost theory. The court held the defendant was not able to prove that the measure of damages should have been the value theory on the basis of substantial performance. Any deviation large enough to have constituted a breach of contract was not trivial and therefore there was not substantial performance. The court held that it was impossible to prove good faith or lack of willfulness in the creation of any variances, as it was held by the trial court that defendant’s deviations were intentional and major. Without evidence of a severe burden to undo what was done, it was unnecessary to apply the value theory of damages.
The court affirmed the award of damages based on the cost of making the homes conform to the contract, as defendant contractor was unable to prove substantial performance or that any deviations were in good faith or lacked willfulness.