Freedman v. Brutzkus
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
EPSTEIN, P. J.
The signature block on a contract bears an attorney signature under the legend “approved as to form and content.” Does that signature amount to an actionable representation to an opposing party’s attorney? We conclude that it does not.
Plaintiff and appellant Gary A. Freedman’s complaint against defendants and respondents Mark Brutzkus and Ezra, Brutzkus & Gubner, LLP (collectively Brutzkus), was dismissed following the sustaining of respondents’ demurrer without leave to amend. Appellant argues the trial court erred in finding that he did not state a cause of action…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Evans v. City of BerkeleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- Cicone v. URS Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1986
- Oceanside 84, Ltd. v. Fidelity Federal BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
- Shafer v. Berger, Kahn, Shafton, Moss, Figler, Simon & GladstoneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
- Vega v. Jones, Day, Reavis & PogueCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Monster Energy Company v. SchechterCalifornia Supreme Court · 2019
- Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Gidding v. Salama CA1/2California Court of Appeal · 2014
- Kent Sterling Attwood v. Bamboo IDE8 Insurance Services, LLCDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2021
- Monster Energy Co. v. SchechterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2018