Boskoff v. Yano

10 Citing cases

  1. McDevitt v. Guenther

    522 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (D. Haw. 2007)   Cited 48 times
    Holding that whether an attorney-client relationship exists is a question of fact based upon several factors.

    The existence of an attorney-client relationship is a necessary element for Plaintiff's legal malpractice claim.See Boskoff v. Yano, 57 F. Supp. 2d 994, 998 (D. Haw. 1998). A claim for legal malpractice requires a plaintiff to prove four elements: (1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship; (2) the existence of a duty on the part of a lawyer; (3) breach of that duty; and (4) damages flowing from the breach. Id. If no attorney-client relationship existed, no claim for legal malpractice can be asserted.

  2. Isuzu Motors Am., LLC v. Jackson

    CIVIL NO. 13-00306 DKW-KSC (D. Haw. Mar. 24, 2015)

    "An attorney-client relationship is contractual and consensual, and such a relationship can be formed only with the consent of the attorney and individual seeking representation." Boskoff v. Yano, 57 F. Supp. 2d 994, 998 (D. Haw. 1998). "An attorney-client relationship is formed when an attorney renders advice directly to a client who has consulted him seeking legal counsel." Id.

  3. Hillhouse v. Haw. Behavioral Health, LLC

    CIV. NO. 14-155 LEK-BMK (D. Haw. Aug. 18, 2014)   Cited 4 times
    Finding that HWPA precludes individual liability of an LLC member; thus, "the only way that Plaintiff can prevail on this claim . . . is by proving [the LLC] is [LLC member's] alter ego"

    The client's belief, however, "must be objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances, which includes consideration of factors such as intent of alleged client and attorney and payment arrangements." Boskoff v. Yano, 57 F. Supp. 2d 994, 998 (D. Haw. 1998). "A lawyer employed or retained by an organization represents the organization acting through its duly authorized constituents."

  4. Au v. Republic State Mortg. Co.

    CIVIL NO. 11-00251 JMS/KSC (D. Haw. Mar. 29, 2013)   Cited 14 times
    Granting in part and denying in part Republic's Motion for Summary Judgment

    "The elements of intentional misrepresentation are: (1) a false statement; (2) knowledge of the statement's falsity; (3) intent to induce reliance; (4) justifiable reliance; [and] (5) resulting damages." Benoist v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 2012 WL 5839943, at *6 (D. Haw. Nov. 15, 2012) (quoting Boskoff v. Yano, 57 F. Supp. 2d 994, 1002 (D. Haw. 1998)). See also, e.g., Martin v. GMAC Mortg. Corp., 2011 WL 6002617, at *8 (D. Haw. Nov. 30, 2012) ("Under Hawaii law, the elements of a fraudulent or intentional misrepresentation claim are: '(1) false representations made by the defendant; (2) with knowledge of their falsity (or without knowledge of their truth or falsity); (3) in contemplation of plaintiff's reliance upon them; and (4) plaintiff's detrimental reliance.'"

  5. Benoist v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n

    CIVIL NO. 10-00350 JMS-KSC (D. Haw. Nov. 15, 2012)   Cited 1 times

    33. "The elements of intentional misrepresentation are: (1) a false statement; (2) knowledge of the statement's falsity; (3) intent to induce reliance; (4) justifiable reliance; [and] (5) resulting damages." Boskoff v. Yano, 57 F. Supp. 2d 994, 1002 (D. Haw. 1998) (citing Cicone v. URS Corp., 183 Cal. App. 3d 194, 227 Cal. Rptr. 887, 890 (1986)). Although Plaintiffs cast their claim as an intentional, as opposed to negligent, misrepresentation claim, a negligent misrepresentation claim is "virtually identical" to an intentional misrepresentation claim, except that the second prong does not require knowledge of the falsity, but rather, the absence of a reasonable ground for believing it to be true.

  6. Estate of Sakioka v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    No. 7132-19 (U.S.T.C. Oct. 18, 2023)

    Courts may also consider "whether the client believed an attorney-client relationship existed." Waggoner, 991 F.2d at 1505; Eastman, 594 F.Supp.3d at 1176 (citing Boskoff v. Yano, 57 F.Supp.2d 994, 998 (D. Haw. 1998) (quoting Research Corp. Tech., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 936 F.Supp. 697, 700 (D. Ariz. 1996)).

  7. Eastman v. Thompson

    594 F. Supp. 3d 1156 (C.D. Cal. 2022)   Cited 7 times
    In Eastman I, the District Court found that it was "more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021," id. at 1193, and that it was "more likely than not that President Trump and Dr. Eastman dishonestly conspired to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021."

    Waggoner , 991 F.2d at 1505.Boskoff v. Yano , 57 F. Supp. 2d 994, 998 (D. Haw. 1998) (quoting Waggoner , 991 F.2d at 1505, and Research Corp. Tech., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. , 936 F. Supp. 697, 700 (D. Ariz. 1996) ). In response to the Court's request for evidence of an attorney-client relationship, Dr. Eastman provided only an unsigned, undated retainer agreement between him, President Trump as candidate, and President Trump's campaign committee.

  8. Aubart v. McCarthy

    Civ. No. 19-00459-ACK-KJM (D. Haw. Aug. 13, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    "An attorney-client relationship is contractual and consensual, and such a relationship can be formed only with the consent of the attorney and individual seeking representation." Boskoff v. Yano, 57 F. Supp. 2d 994, 998 (D. Haw. 1998). "An attorney-client relationship is formed when an attorney renders advice directly to a client who has consulted him seeking legal counsel." Id.

  9. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co. v. Ohana Control Sys., Inc.

    289 F. Supp. 3d 1141 (D. Haw. 2018)   Cited 5 times

    A negligent misrepresentation claim is "virtually identical" to an intentional misrepresentation claim, "except that the second prong does not require knowledge of the falsity, but rather, the absence of a reasonable ground for believing it to be true."Boskoff v. Yano , 57 F.Supp.2d 994, 1002 (D. Haw. 1998). A claim asserting negligent misrepresentation is not subject to the requirements of Rule 9(b). SeeSmallwood v. NCsoft Corp. , 730 F.Supp.2d 1213, 1231–32 (D. Haw. 2010) (holding that, because a negligent misrepresentation claim does not require intent, it is not subject to Rule 9(b) ).

  10. Mailo v. Crail

    CIV. NO. 11-00566 JMS/BMK (D. Haw. Dec. 13, 2011)

    Specifically, a claim for legal malpractice requires a plaintiff to prove four elements: (1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship; (2) the existence of a duty on the part of a lawyer; (3) breach of that duty; and (4) damages flowing from the breach. See Boskoff v. Yano, 57 F. Supp. 2d 994, 998 (D. Haw. 1998). Plaintiff has not pled any facts explaining the circumstances under which the Office of the Public Defender represented him, much less how the Office of the Public Defender's failure to realize there was a conflict of interest in representing Plaintiff caused Plaintiff damages.