Streit v. Covington Crowe

50 Citing cases

  1. Blue Water Sunset, LLC v. Markowitz

    192 Cal.App.4th 477 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 30 times
    Holding interests were adverse where each side claimed ownership rights to the exclusion of the other

    B. Kurtz represented the limited liability companies. The trial court relied on Streit v. Covington Crowe (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 441, 446 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 193] ( Streit) in finding that Kurtz represented the limited liability companies. We perceive no legal error.

  2. Howe v. Glantz

    B239364 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 17, 2013)

    As we will discuss, we conclude that there are no disputed facts upon which a finding of duty on Glantz's part could be based, even if the complaint is viewed as additionally stating causes of action for negligent misrepresentation, negligent hiring and supervision, or some similar breach of duty. One of the requisite elements of a legal malpractice claim is the existence of an attorney-client relationship with the injured party or some other imputed basis for a duty of professional care. (Streit v. Covington & Crowe (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 441, 444 (Streit); Nichols v. Keller (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1672, 1684; Jager v. County of Alameda (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 294, 297; Fox v. Pollack (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 954, 959 (Fox).) When the evidence is undisputed, the question of whether an attorney-client relationship exists is one of law. (Responsible Citizens v. Superior Court (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1717, 1733 (Responsible Citizens); Streit, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 444.)

  3. Shen v. Miller

    212 Cal.App.4th 48 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 31 times   1 Legal Analyses

    These cases do not bolster Miller's position. Nor does Streit v. Covington & Crowe (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 441, 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 193. That case suggests that “agency principles are used primarily to indicate the nature and extent of the attorney's authority. [Citation.

  4. Mendoza v. Continental Sales Co.

    140 Cal.App.4th 1395 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 132 times
    Concluding that defendants' retention of profits supported a claim for conversion

    " Based on these statutory provisions and on principles of common law set forth in the Restatement Second of Agency, the Fourth Appellate District stated, "If an agent is authorized by the principal to employ a subagent, the subagent owes the same duties to the principal as does the agent." ( Streit v. Covington Crowe (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 441, 446, fn. 3 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 193]; see Rest.2d Agency, §§ 5, 428.) 2. Reconsignees as subagents

  5. Kilpatrick v. Wiley

    2001 UT 107 (Utah 2001)   Cited 40 times
    Holding that, for comparison purposes, a start-up company with no historical information could use expert testimony relying on the net profits of similar businesses in the industry to establish the amount of its net lost profits

    Indeed, as one court notes, "It is axiomatic that the employment of a law firm is the employment of all members of that firm unless there is a special understanding otherwise." Knight v. Guzman, 684 N.E.2d 152, 154 (Ill.Ct.App. 1997); see also Streit v. Covington Crowe, 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 193, 196, 82 Cal.App.4th 441, 445 (Ct.App. 4th Dist. 2000) (stating that "by retaining a single attorney, a client establishes an attorney-client relationship with any attorney who is a partner of or is employed by the retained attorney"); Burton v. Estrada, 501 N.E.2d 254, 258 (Ill.Ct.App. 1986) ("[W]hen a client hires an attorney in a partnership the presumption is that he or she has hired the other attorneys in the firm as well, unless there is an agreement otherwise."). In this case, Richard Wiley presents no reason, such as an explicit agreement otherwise, as to why we should conclude he had no attorney-client relationship with the plaintiffs.

  6. Motiva Grp., Inc. v. Global Impact Grp., Inc.

    No. D073466 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2019)

    The trial court did not permit Attorney G. to appear specially on Defendants' behalf after Attorney G. said he would not substitute in as Defendants' counsel. (See Streit v. Covington & Crowe (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 441, 444 [outside the formal context of contesting personal jurisdiction, special counsel is permitted to appear only on behalf of counsel of record]; see generally Air Machine Com SRL v. Superior Court (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 414, 427 [recognizing that California continues to recognize the distinction between special and general appearances and discussing the distinction in the context of personal jurisdiction].) The court granted Motiva's motion, striking Defendants' answers and entering defaults.

  7. McDonold v. Superior Court

    C082536 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 28, 2018)

    Unlike Lysick, there is no evidence that LIC ever hired LBBS to represent McDonold or Silva, nor is there any evidence that McDonold or Silva even knew about LBBS or had any reason to think they were being represented by LBBS. The insureds argue it is not necessary for the client to be aware of the lawyer, citing Streit v. Covington & Crowe (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 441 (Streit). However, that case merely found an attorney-client relationship where a lawyer who was unknown to the client made a court appearance for the client, appearing specially at a hearing on a summary judgment motion, at the request of the client's attorney of record.

  8. Medina v. Kothawala

    No. D071753 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 21, 2018)

    However, we employ it here in its colloquial usage to denote an appearance at a hearing by one attorney at the request and in the place of the attorney of record. (See Streit v. Covington & Crowe (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 441, 444, fn. 2 (Streit).) Upon returning to court that afternoon, Bolin represented that he had no written association of counsel; however, he stated that Mortier had orally given him authorization to associate into the appeal.

  9. Pedroia v. Spectrum Brands, Inc.

    A141610 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2015)

    Ross has nothing to do with whether an in propria persona litigant is entitled to have an attorney argue on his or her behalf. In Streit v. Covington & Crowe (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 441 (Streit), the issue was whether an attorney who specially appeared for a client, as a favor to the client's actual attorney of record, owed a duty to the client. (Id. at p. 444.)

  10. Standard Microsystems Corp. v. Winbond Electronics Corp.

    179 Cal.App.4th 868 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 47 times
    Granting relief from a judgment but not the underlying default would be a useless act

    It would be charitable to describe this statement as a gross oversimplification of the somewhat complex area of law concerning the circumstances that will burden an attorney with a duty of care toward another. (See Streit v. Covington Crowe (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 441, 444-447 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 193].) We need not delve into this subject because the papers in question do not sustain the factual premise that defendants had not engaged Hu. WIL's Mizrahi declared that his principal engaged Hu and his firm "[o]n or about December 20, 2007, . . . to represent it for the limited purpose of negotiating with SMSC regarding an extended deadline to respond to the Complaint, while deciding what U.S. firm to engage for the matter."