Legal Opinion

Loanvest I, LLC v. Utrecht

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 26, 2015No. A141564PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

POLLAK, J.

Plaintiff Loanvest I, LLC (Loanvest), appeals from the dismissal of its cause of action against its former attorneys, Paul F. Utrecht and Utrecht & Lenvin, LLP (collectively Utrecht), after the court granted Utrecht’s special motion to strike under the “anti-SLAPP” 1 statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16). 2 Utrecht is being sued for malpractice by Loanvest, now under the control of James Madow, for allegedly disregarding the interests of Loanvest in order to protect the interests of the person who formerly controlled Loanvest in an action that Madow himself brought against…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarcheCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Kashian v. HarrimanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
  3. Peregrine Funding, Inc. v. Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLPCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
  4. People v. Superior Court (Marks)California Supreme Court · 1991
  5. Freeman v. SchackCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Gaynor v. Bulen, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
  2. Sprengel v. ZbylutCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
  3. Yeager v. Holt, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
  4. Sprengel v. ZbylutCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
  5. Alan C. Cartwright v. Thomason Hendrix, P.C.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 2024

7 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