Plaintiff’s teacher appealed the judgment of the Superior Court

Plaintiff appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) dismissing the plaintiff’s suit after sustaining the defendants’ demurrer to the complaint on statute of limitations grounds and denying the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration based on newly discovered evidence.

The plaintiff law firm sued its former clients for damages for legal services rendered. Plaintiff stated that it prepared a promissory note for the alleged agreed-upon balance due for legal services provided in two lawsuits. Plaintiff alleged that notwithstanding a demand for payment, there remained an unpaid sum. Defendants argued that the promissory note attached to the complaint did not constitute a written agreement and could not be the basis of a common count for account stated because it revealed on its face that there was no definite and precise amount agreed upon. Visit the one of the best san diego employment attorneys who specialize in Employment law.

The court agreed, concluding the promissory note did not constitute a valid enforceable written contract, and therefore, the action, based upon services rendered by the plaintiff, was barred by the two-year statute of limitations period for quantum meruit claims. Plaintiff’s allegations were insufficient to establish a claim for a valid account stated based on an account in writing.

Judgment affirmed; plaintiff’s action was barred by the two-year statute of limitations because promissory note issued by a plaintiff to collect payments for prior legal services rendered did not constitute a valid enforceable written contract. Plaintiff’s allegations did not establish a claim for a valid account stated based on an account in writing.

Plaintiff’s teacher appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which dismissed the teacher’s complaint that sought declaratory relief and rescission of an employment resignation allegedly submitted under undue influence.

The teacher contended that his resignation was invalid because obtained it through duress, fraud, mistake, and undue influence and was given at a time when he lacked the capacity to make a valid contract. The court held that duress or menace was not pled because any damage to the teacher’s reputation through the initiation of suspension and dismissal proceedings was incidental. The court also held that fraud was not pled because the teacher’s complaint failed to assert the elements of knowledge of falsity, intent to induce reliance, and justifiable reliance. Furthermore, the court held that mistake was not pleading because the complaint failed to disclose any facts that suggested consent was obtained through a mistake of fact or law. Finally, the court held that the pleading did set out a claim that the teacher’s consent to the transaction had been obtained through the use of undue influence. According to the court, it was possible that the teacher’s exhaustion and emotional turmoil wholly incapacitated him from exercising his judgment and that he was overly persuaded into signing his resignation document.

The court reversed the judgment of the trial court.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create your website with WordPress.com
Get started
%d bloggers like this: