Legal Opinion

Prakashpalan v. Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 11, 2014No. B244236PublishedCited by 89 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

JOHNSON, J.

Plaintiffs Muruganandan Prakashpalan and Navamalar Prakashpalan were clients of defendant law firm Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack and the individual defendants Walter Lack, Jerry Ramsey, and Robert Wolfe, who are attorneys with the firm (collectively Engstrom). Plaintiffs appeal judgment entered after the trial court sustained Engstrom’s demurrer to their complaint based on Engstrom’s representation of plaintiffs. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1. Factual Allegations of the Second Amended Complaint

Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of…

2Cases cited51 opinions

  1. Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.California Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Oasis West Realty v. GoldmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
  3. Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp.California Supreme Court · 1983
  5. Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1990

46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by89 opinions

  1. Esg Capital Partners v. Venable LLPCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
  2. Dean Beaver v. Tarsadia HotelsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
  3. Murphy v. American General Life InsuranceDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2015
  4. Doubleline Capital LP v. Odebrecht Fin., Ltd.District Court, S.D. Illinois · 2018
  5. 569 East County Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2016

84 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API