- Report: #1034932
Complaint Review: Parker Stanbury LLP - Los Angeles California
-
Author Confirmed
Why?
Parker Stanbury LLP
Los Angeles, California, United States of America
Phone:
Web:
www.parkstan.com
Categories:
Business Rating:
(0)
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good?
Parker Stanbury LLP LegalShield law firm, PPLSI law firm, Pre-Paid Legal Services, prepaid legal services, legal shield California Court of Appeal Says PPL Member Can Sue Parker Stanbury LLP for not providing Contracted PPL member services Los Angeles, California
Taken from California Court of Appeal decision filed 12/12/2012, can be accessed at: www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B234657.DOC
Causes of Action Against Parker Stanbury: [The Appeals Court writes] It appears that Currie can amend her complaint to allege a breach of contract action against Parker Stanbury. The breach of contract action alleged in the operative complaint is based on the contract between Currie and PPLS, to which Parker Stanbury was not a party. However, it is clear that Parker Stanbury entered into an agreement with either PPLS or Currie to provide the services described in the membership agreement. Parker Stanbury assigned May to provide the services required under the agreement. In January 2010, May, in his discretion, determined that a letter or telephone call to One Wests attorney would assist Currie. No letter was written, however, and a phone call was made by someone other than May. Currie alleges that the telephone call which May arranged, but did not make personally, did not satisfy the requirements of the contract under the circumstances. In addition, once May determined that a letter or phone call would assist Currie, she should have received additional telephone calls and letters at a discount of 25 percent. It appears that Currie can allege she was damaged by Mays failure to provide the services stated in the contract in the amount that she paid for the PPLS contract. In addition, it appears that Currie can allege a cause of action for legal malpractice. Her allegation is that once May exercised his discretion and determined that a phone call or letter would assist her, the actions that he took fell below the standard of care for legal services. Currie should be allowed leave to amend to allege causes of action for breach of contract and legal malpractice against Parker Stanbury based on Mays actions.//END
Causes of Action Against Parker Stanbury: [The Appeals Court writes] It appears that Currie can amend her complaint to allege a breach of contract action against Parker Stanbury. The breach of contract action alleged in the operative complaint is based on the contract between Currie and PPLS, to which Parker Stanbury was not a party. However, it is clear that Parker Stanbury entered into an agreement with either PPLS or Currie to provide the services described in the membership agreement. Parker Stanbury assigned May to provide the services required under the agreement. In January 2010, May, in his discretion, determined that a letter or telephone call to One Wests attorney would assist Currie. No letter was written, however, and a phone call was made by someone other than May. Currie alleges that the telephone call which May arranged, but did not make personally, did not satisfy the requirements of the contract under the circumstances. In addition, once May determined that a letter or phone call would assist Currie, she should have received additional telephone calls and letters at a discount of 25 percent. It appears that Currie can allege she was damaged by Mays failure to provide the services stated in the contract in the amount that she paid for the PPLS contract. In addition, it appears that Currie can allege a cause of action for legal malpractice. Her allegation is that once May exercised his discretion and determined that a phone call or letter would assist her, the actions that he took fell below the standard of care for legal services. Currie should be allowed leave to amend to allege causes of action for breach of contract and legal malpractice against Parker Stanbury based on Mays actions.//END
