 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Allen v. Drexler11/14/2002
what extent Allen worked on the personal injury case and whether she was a partner. The fact of Sacks's prevailing on his motion for summary judgment would have provided the jury with no assistance in deciding if Drexler dismissed the lawsuit against Allen because he thought he could not successfully oppose Allen's motion.
Defendants contend that Sacks's motion for summary judgment, granted after the decision to dismiss Allen was made, could not have had any bearing on Drexler's state of mind weeks earlier when he dismissed Allen, as Drexler could not predict what would happen with Sacks's or Allen's motion. They contend that, "based on timing alone," the fact Sacks prevailed on his motion was irrelevant. We agree; Drexler did not know at the time he decided to dismiss the case against Allen that Sacks's motion for summary judgment would be granted weeks later. As such, the later granting of Sacks's motion could not have affected Drexler's decision whether or not to oppose Allen's motion. Therefore, evidence regarding the grant of Sacks's motion for summary judgment would have no tendency to cast doubt on Drexler's credibility in testifying about the reasons he dismissed Allen from the underlying lawsuit. (See Evid. Code, ยง 210 ["`Relevant evidence' means evidence, including evidence relevant to the credibility of a witness or hearsay declarant, having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action"].) In short, Allen was not deprived of relevant evidence.
IV. The Court Erred in Granting a Directed Verdict for the Ramirezes Based on Advice of Counsel Defense
Allen argues that the trial court erred in granting the Ramirezes' motion for a directed verdict based on its conclusion it could decide as a matter of law that the Ramirezes relied on the advice of counsel in filing the underlying lawsuit against Allen. Allen asserts this issue required resolution of factual issues by the jury, and that the trial court erred in directing a verdict.
"When, as here, an appeal is taken from a judgment entered upon a directed verdict, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellant [Allen]. All inferences must be drawn in appellant's favor. If we find legal merit to appellant's claim and substantial evidence to support that claim, we are required to reverse the trial court. (Colbaugh v. Hartline (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1516, 1521 . . . .)" (South Bay Building Enterprises, Inc. v. Riviera Lend-Lease, Inc. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1111, 1120, italics omitted.)
We concluded above, however, that Allen has failed on appeal to establish that reversible error occurred with regard to the jury's finding of lack of favorable termination. Had the Ramirezes not won a directed verdict in their favor, the jury's finding that Allen could not establish the element of favorable termination would have applied equally to the Ramirezes, with the same result that they would not be liable for malicious prosecution. Thus, any error in granting a directed verdict and entering judgment in favor of the Ramirezes is necessarily harmless.
" t is a defense to a malicious prosecution action to show the action `was filed pursuant to the advice of counsel after the full disclosure of all relevant facts and that a person acting on the advice of counsel . . . has proceeded with probable cause and in good faith.'" (Swat-Fame, Inc. v. Goldstein (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 613, at p. 630, quoting Bertero v. National General Corp., supra, 13 Cal.3d 43, 53-54.) "However, a party may only rely on advice of counsel if that party has fully and truthfully disclosed the relevant facts to counsel and has acted in good
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|