Newport Beach
Newport Beach
Los Angeles
Las Vegas
San Diego
Walnut Creek
North San Diego
(949)221-1000 (949)221-1001 20320 S.W. Birch Street Second Floor, Newport Beach CA 92660
(818)712-9800 (818)712-9900 21215 Burbank Blvd. Suite 500, Woodland Hills CA 91367
(702)258-6665 (702)258-6662 1160 N Town Center Dr Suite 250, Las Vegas NV 89144
(619)236-0048 (619)236-0047 501 West Broadway Suite 1700, San Diego CA 92101
(510)540-4881 (510)540-4889 2033 N. Main St. Suite 600, Walnut Creek, Ca 94596
(602)274-1204 (602)274-1205 8950 South 52nd St Suite 201, Tempe AZ 85284
(775)440-2389 (775) 440-2390 50 West Liberty Suite 1090, Reno NV 89501
(720) 779-2500 (303)256-6205 1999 Broadway, Suite 3250, Denver, Colorado 80202
(760)557-2940 (619)389-2993 760 Garden View Ct. Unit #220 Encinitas, CA 92024
(949) 221-1000 (949) 221-1001 1910 Pacific Avenue, Suite 2000 Dallas, Texas 75201

Congratulations to Woodland Hills Partner Eileen Gaisford and Associate Dustin Rabi on Their Motion for Summary Judgment Being Granted!

Congratulations to Woodland Hills Partner Eileen Gaisford and Associate Dustin Rabi on their Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”) being granted in Los Angeles County Superior Court!

BWB&O’s client in this matter was the driver of vehicle who was involved in an auto v. auto collision. The Plaintiff, in this matter, filed suit against the client, alleging Negligence. However, it was determined that the Plaintiff in this matter had previously executed a settlement release as to our client, prior to the filing of the present Complaint.

Accordingly, BWB&O’s MSJ asserted that Plaintiff’s claim was barred under the affirmative defense of 1.) Accord and Satisfaction, codified as California Uniform Commercial Code § 3311, 2.) Release, 3.) Waiver, and 4.) the Doctrine of Estoppel, contending that the Plaintiff had previously reached a good faith settlement as full satisfaction to a bona fide dispute.

The matter was factually and evidentiary complicated by the fact that the Plaintiff had filed the complaint under a different name than the one that had previously signed the release and ultimately received the funds. The matter was further complicated by the fact that Plaintiff’s counsel had executed the release through a power of attorney and the Plaintiff was now alleging that he had never received the check.

The MSJ dealt with discrepancies through the application of the doctrine of unilateral mistake and to overcome the evidentiary issue as to authentication, a declaration was prepared and executed by the Plaintiff’s prior counsel.

Despite the unusual factual and evidentiary challenges, the Court ultimately agreed and held that the evidence and arguments before the Court presented no triable issue that Plaintiff’s claim was barred, and Summary Judgment was granted for BWB&O’s client.